New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

750  2July 2003   

A chorus is nevertheless growing, claiming that the essence of socialism can be reclaimed by the TU movement.  A swathe of new TU secretarial elections has brought a new wave of militant leaders into office - Crow, Curran, Gilchrist, Rix, Simpson, Serwotka, Woodley - and they have been doing their job well.  But it is simply wrong to assert that the Labour Party was, historically, the mere tool of the trade union movement.  Active democratic socialism got under way in the 1890s, locally and nationally, with the work of the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society - the trade unions were not involved.  The success of Kier Hardie (Independent Labour Party) in winning his Merthyr Tydfil seat in 1894, was not owed to the TUC!  As judicial pressures against union organisers, during the 1890s, the TUC decided that - in order specifically to change the anti-TU "common law" being developed the Judiciary - they would have to get involved in "politics" and seek statutory amendments.  And so they formed the Labour Representation Committee in 1900. 

The Liberal Opposition, desperate to defeat the Tories and fearing a "split on the Left", entered into an electoral pact with the TUC Representation Committee, and did not oppose their 29 candidates in the January 1906 Election - and had no TUC candidates standing against them in their own top marginals.  But altogether, 56 MPs were elected who were described by The Times as "the Labour Party", long before there was any organisation answering to that name.  In addition to the "TUC 29", there were 27 other Labour MPs.  The "Labour Party" in the Commons drew heavily on the work of the Cooperative movement, as well as the Fabian Society. The Labour Party itself was eventually established by a constitutional conference in early 1918, at which the TUC, the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour Party and the Cooperative movement were all strongly represented.  They could not agree the Party Constitution when they met in Nottingham in January 1918 - and they had to adjourn until February.

This history, it seems, is being re-written.  Sadly, the myth of TUC historical dominance is being peddled even by Tribune, whose staff should know better.  Many of the new TU leaders are speaking as if they have some kind of droit de seigneur over the Party.  That is not true.  It is true that the 1900 TUC initiative was successful, in that it immediately achieved the changes in TU law which it sought, by way of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 - the Lib/TUC pact worked!  The Liberals had dished the Tories with a landslide victory in January 1906, and the TUC got their part of the bargain.  And it is true that, in the period between 1906 and 1911, the TUC used its financial muscle to pay "their" MPs' salaries (that is, for half of the "Labour Party" representation, the others had to pay their own way).  But from 1911 onwards, MPs all received parliamentary salaries in their own right (thanks to Labour Party pressure) - and the distinctive TUC advantage was removed.

The perceptions of the trade union movement have been vital to the Labour Party, and remain so.  Trade union experience gives the Labour Party a distinctive practical relevance which is missing from the Tory and LibDem Parties.  Many of the gravest injustices, nationally and globally, arise in the workplace, where the trade unions make their home.  But the TUC has never taken a socialist lead in UK politics: democratic socialism is much more heavily dependent on the imagination of the intellectual left.  Indeed, there is nothing socialist about TU success, as the US unions so graphically demonstrate. 

I am a union member, part of the GMB - and I greatly value the perceptions which TU members bring to political debate on the Left.  I have served as an EC member of the Society of Labour Lawyers, which doubles as a "union" for Labour Party members.  And we must all address the growing disillusionment on the TU left, much of which is politically well-founded.  Our labour laws remain unjust, and will be greatly improved by greater European integration. The Labour Party would be gravely the poorer if there were to be any permanent breach between the unions and the Party.

• But we must also get our history right.

751  3 July 2003  

1. Minimum Wage  Readers will know that I am sceptical about the Minimum Wage legislation. And one reason is that it imposes am irrelevant rigidity upon a wide range of relationships which may otherwise operate satisfactorily as low-return "contracts of employment".  I have in mind particularly the Stillington volunteers, who are assembling to run the rescued Post Office.  It should be possible to pay them - at a much lower rate of say £1.50 or £2 per hour, to help to run the shop.  Similarly, many retired people would enjoy the sense of well-being to be derived from "employment", even at the lowest wage-levels.  My view is that not-for-profit or charitable companies should be able to "employ" volunteers outside the Minimum Wage Act, with proper employment-law safeguards being retained for the mainstream staff. The Stillington Post Office is likely to face the erosion of its work force, as the idealism of the initial months wears off - and a stronger bond will be required.

2. Legal Instability  As a cooperative, the Stillington Post Office has adopted the legal format of an industrial and provident society, invented by Parliament in 1852 to accommodate Robert Owen, the redoubtable founder of the cooperative movement.  But any cooperative can be converted, at the whim of its members and without any "official" permission, into a private shareholding company at any time. Its re-registration as a shareholding company is automatic - the Registrar of Companies has no statutory discretion to refuse.  Thus, given a future change of heart by its members, a cooperative can at any time be "privatised". That is a powerful disincentive to any public body to assist their initiative by the use of public money, however convincing the case may be for public interest investment.  This loophole would be closed by the creation of a new community interest company, as now envisaged by the Government, for introduction in 2004.

3. Finally, taxation.  A cooperative is subject to all normal taxes.  As the shop will not qualify for charity status, it will receive no official encouragement from "the State", in spite of its obvious community benefit.  If the Government is serious about fostering community initiative (and I believe it is) Gordon Brown must get his most inventive tax-concession lawyers to work on the subject - pronto!  Where a cooperative is dedicated to the provision of a community benefit, the State should lend its support.

I would love to hear from Stillington - they should have their own website, so that we could all monitor their progress!  I am sure that could be staffed, as this website is manned, by an unpaid volunteer...

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE