New Labour, same unions

Following on from yesterday's post about the unique way in which the Trades Unions and the Labour party are funded, today I am going to look at the other side of the coin.  What do the Unions get from Labour in return for their money.


With the British Airways cabin-crew strike set to start on Saturday, the Government - despite condemning the strike - are remaining suspiciously quiet on resolving the matter.  Surely they should be looking to do something to save their citizens from the undesirable consequences of the actions a minority; especially if they are acting as "deplorably" as Gordon Brown says they are.


Whether the strike is justified or not doesn't really form any part of the argument here.  The main factor is that the Trades Unions in the public and service sectors seem to be heading the way of the Trades Unions of the manufacturing sector back in the dark days of Jim Callaghan's government; striking at the drop of a hat, knowing that sooner or later their demands will have to be met.


I would hazard that the new British attitude towards work (more sickies, more people choosing to stay on benefits) plays somewhat of a part in this whole sorry escapade.  With strikers being paid "strike pay" out of Union funds, I am sure that a lot of workers may well just see striking as "money for nothing"; they get to sit at home all day and the Union pays them to do it.


The power of the Unions always has and, unless radical reforms take place, always will be the main problem with the Labour party.  When one party receives over 60% of their funding from one source, there is always going to be a conflict of interest.  Considering the fact that it was only the support of Unite that saved Labour from the bailiffs in 2008, it is very clear as to whose hand is resting on the plug of the Labour life support machine.


Already, Union money has purchased a number of policy changes such as:

Full employment rights for temporary agency workers, imposing a great new burden on employers;

Retreat on the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, even though Peter Mandelson did say that the status quo at Royal Mail was untenable;

Ideas to open up supply of NHS services were abandoned after Unison threatened to suspend £100,000 of funding from individual Labour MPs and threatened further sanction if Labour continued the path of reform;

The Government has put the brakes on the Academy programme;

Ending the European Working Time Directive opt-out.

Thirteen government Ministers appear unable to criticise the strike or suggest action upon it, seeing as they accept money from Unite towards their campaign expenses, including Brown, Balls and Miliband.


Add to this the fact that 60 of Labour's own MPs and 109 of Labour's PPCs in the upcoming election are Union members, along with the fact that 148 of these 169 MPs and PPCs accept Union case and you have a massive conflict of interest.


In a way, Labour have dug their own grave.  Their creation of needless public sector jobs in order to keep figures looking good has strengthened the power of the Unions no end.  Should Labour win the election, they will be seriously hamstrung with regards to how they can cut the deficit.  The Unions certainly will not stand for cuts to jobs within the public sector, and Labour would be stupid to defy them.  This leaves Labour with only one realistic option: tax rises.


Not only will voting for Labour in the next election mean five more years of Brown and everything that goes with him, but also another step down the slippery slope which risks taking this country back to the Union-controlled politics of the 1970s.


Is that really what you want?