One Nation Labour is Blairism Mark II

Over the weekend, rebranded One Nation Labour will almost certainly vote for proposals to end the historic relationship between the trade unions and the party they founded over a century ago.

When One Nation Labour assembles in Brighton for its annual conference, they will have before them a slim document from former general secretary Ray Collins. Vaguely worded, it calls for a consultation on changes that are essentially already on their way.

Dubbed as an interim report, Building A One Nation Labour Party is designed to get the trade unions to act like turkeys and vote for Christmas. Behind the bland words about Ed Miliband wanting to “mend not end” the relations with trade unionists, there is another agenda.

The Labour leader can’t be a One Nation politician – he has borrowed the idea from the 19th century Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli who claimed he was representing all classes – until he distances himself from “special interest” groups.

These are now seen as including the trade unions, who represent six million working men and women in Britain and their families. Up until now, those in unions affiliated to Labour have had part of their subs transferred to the party, giving them a nominal membership.

Responding to Tory jibes about “being in the pocket of the unions” – in reality, nothing could be further from the truth – Miliband wants to replace this arrangement. In future, trade unionists will have to personally join Labour. No matter that the party will lose up to £9 million a year in subs this way – this is One Nation Labour in practice.

Some unions like the GMB and Unison have expressed their opposition. But what’s the betting they endorse the Collins’ report on Sunday, paving the way for a special conference next March to ratify concrete rule changes?

After all, that’s what they did in 1995, when the then leader Tony Blair and his deputy Gordon Brown told the unions that dropping the commitment to socialism in the party’s constitution would help them to win the general election. Miliband is saying the same thing.

Tellingly, Collins sees the change in the relationship with the trade unions as part of the process that the Blairites began, with his report saying: “Importantly, these proposals go with the grain of the last big reforms of the Labour [Party] 20 years ago.”

In fact, what’s the difference between Miliband and Blair in their approach to politics? Not much in essence. At the 2004 Labour conference, Blair pledged to put “power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few”. For good measure, he added: “It is New Labour that now wears the one nation mantle.”

So when Miliband told the Trades Union Congress that “change must happen” and that this was “only way to build a truly One Nation party so we can build a One Nation country", he was telling us nothing new. He wears a hollow crown.

Either as New Labour or One Nation Labour, it’s the same grand deception. Miliband, like Blair and Brown before him, believes that ordinary people can somehow benefit from a ruthless market capitalism, with a few adjustments made here and there.

Miliband’s One Nation nonsense is founded on his vision of a “responsible capitalism” which will pay higher wages because it’s somehow good for the economy. Yet there are many Britains, many nations: the stinking rich living in luxury homes and ordinary people falling behind with their rent because of the bedroom tax; global corporations and their shareholders on the one side and those on zero hours contracts on the other; the wealthy with their hold on the political process and an electorate whose votes count for little.

None of this will change while we continue to live in a class-divided society.

As Labour gathers, some polls put the hated Tories on level pegging. In the end, you need a microscope to spot the difference between the original One Nation party and the pretenders to the throne.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

Distrust of politicians reaches new heights

We live in a Britain where a clear majority see themselves as working class, where trust in politicians continues to plummet and where new generations are the least likely to have party loyalties and to vote at general elections.

Lack of endorsement of the current political system of representative democracy is the clear message that shines through the latest British Social Attitudes survey that tracks people’s views, comparing data gathered over a 30-year period.

What emerges is a snapshot of an electorate that is independent, interested in politics but increasingly disconnected from existing institutions and the way they are ruled. The politics chapter is worth studying in detail. Key findings include:

-      75% agreed that the political parties are only interested in votes, up from 64% in 1987.

-      Two-thirds of those in the early 20s or early 30s identify with a particular party, compared with 85% in the same age group back in 1983.

-      In 1987, almost half (46%) of the British public said they had a “very strong” or “fairly strong” identification with a party. That’s now down to 31%.

-      Fewer people have voted in the last three general elections than they have in the past and researchers say we could be on a “downward trajectory”.

-      There’s been a long-term decline in the numbers saying it’s their duty to vote, falling from 76% in 1987 to 62% in 2011.

-      Interest in political issues has actually risen, with 36% saying that have a great deal/a lot of interest compared with 29% in 1986. Most of the increase is to be found amongst older people, however.

-      Non-electoral participation has largely increased over 30 years. Many more now say they have signed a petition on taken part in a protest.

When it comes to “trust” in politicians, the figures are quite remarkable. One in three (32%) say they almost never trust government, up from a mere 11% in 1986. And  the proportion who “just about always” or “most of the time” trust government has almost halved, falling from 38%  to just 18%.

So that’s over eight out of ten voters who don’t care to lend their trust to government. This scepticism is currently reflected in the polls that reject any plans to attack Syria, whatever the situation over chemical weapons.

Contemporary Britain, says the BSA report, is “marked by strong and pervasive class

divisions”  - where 60% think of themselves as working class -  which in turn “lead to sustained and possibly increasing inequalities across classes”. The authors find it a “paradox” that at the same time fewer people identify with any political party.

There is a relatively simple explanation for this, however which the report does not delve into. Labour in particular has made strenuous efforts to distance itself from representing the interests of the working class. This morning, Labour leader Ed Miliband is, for example, telling the trade unions that their traditional membership links with the party have to change so that he can stand a better chance of winning the next election.

Behind Miliband’s shift is a more profound process that’s been under way for about the same period as that covered by the BSA, namely corporate-driven globalisation with its dependence on deregulated markets, low wages and fewer and fewer workplace rights.

New Labour bought into this and became a neo-liberal, capitalist party. This is something union leaders still find hard to stomach or acknowledge while ordinary working people clocked on to it some time ago. No one should be surprised that fewer and fewer people want to “identify” with Labour in these circumstances.    

The BSA survey is a valuable piece of research. It paints a picture of a democracy in decline, with the major parties committed to the status quo. Giving the right to vote a new significance will require a fundamental shift in the political system, along the lines of creating a real democracy. You could do worse than support projects like the Agreement of the People for the 21^st century campaign and others fighting for democratic emancipation.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor