THE DOWNING STREET' SLEEPWALKER
Ken Coates  

At the end of the year 2002 Tony Blair issued a dispiriting message to the British people, which earned him an entirely discouraging press. The Daily Mirror, for instance, for long Labour's principal tabloid ally, and now New Labour's shrillest critic, emblazoned its front page with the headline: «You've never had it so bad», and reported a warning from the Prime Minister that Britain should expect « a grim 2003 with the prospect of a war against Iraq, terrorist attacks, and financial struggle ? I cannot recall a time when Britain was confronted, simultaneously, by such a range of difficult and, in some cases, dangerous problems.» Other newspapers offered similarly dismal presentations.
On a different front, the new General Secretary of the Labour Party, David Triesman, gave The Independent its front page lead story, warning of a «dangerous split» between the Labour Party and the trade unions.
Certainly, the scheduled war against Iraq is deeply unpopular, not only among trade unionists, but among the British people as a whole. Many trade unionists were among the 400,000 demonstrators who took to the London streets in November, carrying placards which read «Not in my name», or «Don't attack Iraq».
But policy in the Middle East was not the only turbulent area which worried the Labour Party General Secretary. «It is very important to people in the Party, the Government and the trade unions, not to accidentally sleepwalk to a catastrophe without recognising it» he said.
Sleepwalking was an unfortunate choice of metaphor, because in the unprecedented stand-off between the firefighters and the Government, one of the matters which enraged the Fire Brigades Union was that the Deputy Prime Minister would not agree, following all-night negotiations between the Union and the employers, to get out of bed in order to pronounce the Government's view upon a draft deal which had been concluded. Subsequently the deal was vetoed, because the Government refused to underwrite even temporary financial assistance which would have enabled the employers to go ahead by bridging their funds.
While soldiers were manning inadequate fire appliances, the dissatisfaction of the firefighters increased continuously. Two short strikes, the second of which lasted eight days, gave place to a serious effort at further negotiations, in spite of the whole arbitrary way in which the Government had treated all earlier talks. The prospect appears problematic, and it is not at all impossible that a new spate of strikes may take place early in 2003.
But whatever settlements may be imposed upon the firefighters, one thing that is very clear is that decades of loyal support for the Labour Party have now been placed in grave jeopardy. Frequently the firefighters have been characterised as part of the militant workforce in the British public services. But this characterisation is deeply misleading. Over most of their history the firefighters have not been strike prone, and the nature of their job has ensured that they have strong identification with other uniformed services, including the police. For years, firefighters' pay was linked to police pay.
That New Labour should have provoked a ferocious backlash among such a constituency is almost entirely due to the abrasive conduct of its affairs by the Prime Minister, who repeatedly poured oil on the flames of the dispute.
But of course, other trade unions are widely cited as permanent members of the «awkward squad». The train drivers, ASLEF, or the other rail union, RMT, were compelled to adopt quite militant attitudes because the crisis of the British railways had become open and festering. In the turbulence of industrial relations which ensued, new leaders emerged who were not unnaturally more radical than the older ones. Just as outspoken as his predecessor, Bob Crow had spent some time in Arthur Scargill's attempt to form a breakaway party from Labour, and although he had abandoned that attempt, he carried a message which was deeply discomforting to the Labour Party and its Minister of Transport.
Unsurprisingly, the ferment of opposition showed itself first in the public sector, where Government policy has generated considerable discontent among employees. Unison has seen a succession of internal battles, and open discontent among rank and file workers. Unison has been exposed to recurrent battles about the removal of the political funds which have traditionally been offered to support the Labour Party. The conduct of the Firefighters' dispute has clearly exacerbated anti-Government feeling in the much larger Unison organisation, which represents Local Government employees, nurses, and a very wide cross-section of other public sector workers across all grades. Unison is the largest trade union in Britain, and its discontent is comprehensive, uniting objectors to New Labour's proposed reforms of the public service structures, with widespread resentment at the financial neglect of those services, low pay, and arbitrary managements.
The Unison leadership tries, with great difficulty, to maintain its loyalty to the Labour Party machine, although exasperation continually shows through. There has emerged a kind of competition between mutinous rank and file members in the other public sector unions, most notably the General Municipal and Boilermakers' Union (GMB), led by John Edmonds, the most prominent spokesman of the TUC, who has presented the strongest and most integrated critique of New Labour policies. The elections for his replacement will be conducted during the year 2003, and already there are signs of increasing populism among the contenders to become Edmonds' successor. It is clearly understood that support for the Government will win no votes whatever in the public services.
Elections are also expected in the Transport and General Workers' Union, which has substantial membership in the car industry. Similar pressures manifest themselves in the struggle for this succession which will replace Bill Morris, a strong ally of Gordon Brown in the Labour Party's internal competition.
But by far the most significant indicator of discontent in the British Unions was the election victory of Derek Simpson, the new leader of the Engineers' Union, Amicus. Simpson overcame an unscrupulous campaign of denigration, and sharp practices by the outgoing leadership. He defeated Sir Ken Jackson, widely acknowledged as Tony Blair's main ally in the trade union movement. A Sheffield engineer, Simpson has deep roots in the engineers' tradition, and has been widely reported as a former member of the British Communist Party. Whatever his affiliations ten years ago, before the implosion of that Party, Simpson has emerged as a profoundly principled and serious alternative leader.
Ken Jackson came out of the former Electrical trade union, which merged to form Amicus, in which it fully intended to maintain a permanent hegemony. The electricians' leaders were the praetorian guard of strident anti-Communism, and had merged in the battle against ballot-rigging, in which one part of the old Communist leadership had been exposed in fraudulent electoral practices. But fraudulent practices were part of the culture of the Electrical trade union, and they have been continually suspected over the years, culminating in Sir Ken Jackson's own battle for survival, in which he was accused of complicity in a scam which wiped the Union's computer records, allegedly to attempt a cover up of vote-rigging. Certainly, three officials of Amicus have admitted that they voted twice to falsify the nominations for Sir Ken Jackson, and a fourth was also discovered to be among a group of «flying voters» who moved from branch to branch of the Union, casting votes to which they could not be entitled, to nominate the incumbent.
In September, Roger Maskell, the former Secretary of the Union in London and the South East, told his solicitors that Sir Ken Jackson presided over the scam on multiple voting, and was present at discussions in which «it was suggested that he should be nominated for re-election by branches even if they had not met to discuss» the election.
Shady practices apart, the old Electrical trade union played a major role in covering for the melt-down of traditional industrial relations at The Times newspaper, and in legitimising the new industrial relations practices of Rupert Murdoch. The Union also became a byword for special (sweetheart) deals, in which industrialists opening up on green-field sites, granted it a monopoly of Union representation, on the presumption that this would be «responsible». It was doubtless expected also to be cheaper.
Derek Simpson has approached this legacy in a remarkably open-minded and democratic way. The initiative for change, evidently necessary, will be placed firmly in the hands of the membership. Profoundly significant reforms can be expected, and they will be likely to liquidate a major part of the Thatcher inheritance.
But, superimposed upon this seismic change in industrial relations will be the gathering argument within the Labour Party and its trade union affiliates. Simpson, of course, will see his role as facilitating democratic expression. But this is a radical new step, since many of the earlier generation of «left» leaders saw their role as involving the management of democracy, rather than its facilitation.
Strong arguments, across the spectrum, may be expected to challenge the Labour Party's traditional sources of funding in the trade unions. They will be heightened by the fact that the decennial ballots for the renewal of political funds will be taking place during the next months. These were a legacy of the Thatcher legal reforms, and they make the confirmation of political funds dependent on the result of a ballot to be conducted every ten years. (British trade unions are forbidden to use their industrial funds for most forms of political activity, so that their political presence depends on the confirmation of a specific political fund, earmarked for that purpose.)
In the suffocating alienation which is emerging throughout the traditional working class constituency of the Labour Party, it is quite difficult to anticipate the outcome of these ballots. It is possible that the high level of sophistication of trade unionists will allow them to accept the need to renew the ballots, and maintain the political funds, but may wish to reallocate those monies for other purposes than the support of Labour Party electoral campaigns.
It is certain that already many trade unions are fiercely cutting back on their financial contributions to the Labour Party, which is one of the reasons why that Party is now in an acute financial crisis. Another reason is that Blair's chosen strategy, with the priority of obtaining commercial donations such as the million pounds from Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss, or the even more contentious Mittal donation from the Indian steel tycoon, who subsequently received British Government support in his takeover bid for Romanian steel, had begun to become unsustainable. Bad publicity was making businessmen more and more shy of being perceived to support a political cause which was more and more unpopular, linked as it was in the public mind with «sleaze». Without business support, and with greatly diminished trade union support, there is no wonder that Mr. Blair is looking towards state funding of political parties: but this will not prove a popular cause in Britain, where none of the Parties enjoys widespread acceptance.
Of course, the real question is not whether the trade unions will continue to support New Labour financially. They may very well not. But what will they do with their political muscle? At the moment, there is no viable alternative for them. Will that situation continue through the anguish of the war in Iraq, and the economic downturn? Or shall we begin to see a political awakening which will put an end to Labour's General Secretary's concern about sleepwalking?