What are we to make of the spat between Len McCluskey, the
leader of Britain’s biggest union and Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party
who in large measures owes his very position to the man he has publicly castigated?
McCluskey wants Miliband to rid his leadership of three
Blairite members of the shadow cabinet or risk losing the next election. For
his part, Miliband has attacked McCluskey for a “reprehensible” attempt to
divide the Labour and of being “disloyal” to the party.
Wary of attempts by the right-wing press to portray him as a
creature of the unions, a spokesman for Miliband added for good measure that
McCluskey "does not speak for the Labour Party".
The charge sheet against McCluskey was further extended to
accuse him of advocating “the kind of politics that lost Labour many elections
in the 1980s”. Considering that McCluskey’s Unite provides 20% of the funding
for Labour, it’s a high-risk quarrel.
Miliband is surely aware, however, that McCluskey is unlikely
to turn his words into actions anytime soon. And here’s where McCluskey is
somewhat disingenuous. In his interview with the New
Statesman, McCluskey says his recent re-election as general secretary
means the union will be checking up on Labour up to after the next election.
But when McCluskey suggests Miliband must spending many an
hour worrying about how to neuter the influence of the Blairites, he has got it
100% wrong. Miliband, it is true, has tried to distance himself a little from
the Blair-Brown governments, of which he was a member. But in essence, Miliband
is no different in outlook.
Under his leadership, Labour has adopted policies and
attitudes which Unite is actually opposed to. These include the acceptance of
the ConDems’ public sector pay freeze, cuts in services and jobs at local
government level, opposition to strike action in defence of pensions, etc. etc.
etc.
As Miliband’s statement says, he believes McCluskey is
advocating the politics of the 1980s, which Labour has rejected. Instead,
Miliband has embraced “responsible capitalism” as a goal, pre-distribution
rather than redistribution (I’ll leave you to ponder that one), workfare and reducing
the national debt. He is also vying with Ukip and the Tories to adopt
anti-immigration postures and has no plans to end the role of the markets in
public services and the NHS.
This is Blairism Mark II, the hunt for the so-called “centre
ground” in British politics, which is now overcrowded with politicians from the
all the mainstream parties putting forward more or less the same policies.
McCluskey must know this. Indeed, he refers to the dangers
of Miliband going into an election with “austerity-lite” policies. But by
choosing to attack Blairites like Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Liam Byrne,
he evades the reality of Miliband’s own leadership and what Labour has
irrefutably become.
McCluskey claims that Labour is “at a crossroads” when in
fact it passed them a long time ago. Neoliberalism isn’t, whatever McCluskey might
suggest, a product of Blairism. Rather, it was the other way round. Blair, like
Thatcher before him, responded to the changes in the capitalist system.
Globalisation demanded deregulation and open markets. States
and governments fell into line because, ultimately, they serve the same master
– the bottom line. The era that went before – top-down state ownership, heavy
bureaucracy, capital controls, regulation etc – was swept aside and cannot be
reproduced.
Miliband is no fool and he knows this. Having seen what’s
happened to Francois Hollande across the Channel, where attempts to rein in
capitalism have floundered, Miliband is not about to go down the same path. So
when McCluskey says that if Labour fails to emerge as “the authentic voice of
ordinary working people” his union would reconsider its position, he is a long
way behind what’s already happened.
Unite stumped up the cash to get Miliband elected ahead of
his brother after the last election. The political return on capital invested
is so negligible that his membership must wonder why they continue to fund
Labour. McCluskey is undoubtedly feeling the pressure from his rank-and-file. That’s
why he’s spoken out. Now he owes them a debate about where their money goes
right now, not at some distant point in the future.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
No comments:
Post a Comment