Why unite should disaffiliate from the labour party

Unite who pays millions into labour every year and are by far labours biggest donor who have been caught up in the latest debacle in Falkirk west. Its time for unite to disaffiliate I believe. For many years the unions have paid into labour hoping for better this day has never come. Now unite has finally started to punch its weight in the labour party it’s found itself caught out and demonised. This should tell Len and all those in the leadership of our union that this strategy of “reclaiming labour” is flawed and will end up wasting millions of member’s money and ultimately loose us jobs and valuable time in building an alternative... I am a unite member and am proud to be so I am less proud of our unions political campaigning its weak at best pathetic at worst. Millions of our hard earned pounds go to the labour party without us having a say. The political fund should be opened up and democratised as a first step. Why should a select few who are labour party members decide what the unions political fun is spent on this is hugely undemocratic and must be brought to an end as soon as possible. As a member of the socialist party who campaign within TUSC I cannot understand why unite who apparently is moving to the left I’m far from convinced given they are still giving discounts and vouchers to use in marks and Spencer who still use workfare well played comrades looking out for those young low paid workers I see there !. There is no logical reason why unite and all unions for that matter would fund the labour party those who oppose breaking the link cannot even use well there is no alternative anymore as there clearly is. TUSC may not be a party but it is ready and waiting for bigger unions to take it up and get involved and mould it to represent ordinary workers at all levels in a union. I wont stop paying my political fund levee with unite as ridiculously if you stop paying this all of your political fund is stopped which is not what we are arguing for. We as Marxists argue the political fund should be democratised at the very least and at most broke totally with labour and we should be backing each candidate on merit if a labour party member is against the cuts which a few have been then that’s fine as long as they agree to unites position of opposition to all cuts to jobs and services I have no problem with that. The thing is this would quickly come to a head as those who do oppose the cuts in labour are in a minority bringing the need for a question on political representation for workers firmly back on to the agenda. Labour claim they want more working class candidates this is code for more working class candidates who agree with our line of slower cuts. This is not good enough and unite should not be bounced into supporting union backed pro austerity candidates even if they are so called working class. Its time for those in unite who are serious about fighting the cuts to make up their minds do we go on funding labour for ever and a day or do we make a clean break and start a fresh. I say we opt for the later.

Are the unions really taking over the labour party?

Sounds a strange thing to say given it was the trade unions who came together to set up the original labour party notably a far cry from the party it is today I’d remind any labour left trying to claim the unions should still back labour I’d dispute this strongly. But in the last month and a bit there has been an interesting development in Falkirk West. New Labour has suspended its parliamentary selection process in Scottish constituency Falkirk West for the byelection to replace disgraced MP Eric Joyce. An investigation into alleged 'irregularities' is being organised by party officials. This follows allegations against Unite the Union of recruiting members to the constituency. Unite has the aim of getting more working class candidates selected and elected as MPs and councillors. For Falkirk West, Unite member Karie Murphy was touted as a candidate. While Murphy's record is open to criticism, Unite should have a say in the selection process. Unite is New Labour's biggest affiliate, paying over £3 million a year in affiliation fees. Its political strategy is to try and transform New Labour back to its roots and strengthen party democracy. The Socialist party has always said that, for this strategy to stand any chance, Unite would have to go into New Labour with a full programme against all cuts and privatisation, and for socialist economic policies. It would be no good replacing Blairite right wingers with trade union backed ones. Expulsions However, the limits to this strategy have become apparent. A handful of Labour councillors, largely Unite members and including the two brave Southampton councillors, have voted against cuts and found themselves suspended or expelled from Labour groups. Right-wing leaders, locally and nationally, do not tolerate challenges to the pro-capitalist policies of New Labour. Many years ago now, the Labour right wing brought in the 'one member one vote' (OMOV) selection processes for parliamentary candidates, replacing selection by the constituency parties' general committees (GC). This was because the right believed the GCs were dominated by the left and trade union delegates, so OMOV would make the selection of right-wing candidates more likely. The right wanted a party that was safe for big business. Of course, the right have always feared a mass membership party that was based on fighting for socialist policies. They feared the influence of socialist and Marxist ideas in the 1970s and 1980s. They launched an offensive against the Socialist's predecessor, Militant, which led to expulsions from Labour, including of two Marxist MPs, Terry Fields and Dave Nellist. This was with the ambition of neutering Labour's fighting wing. Militant warned that this would lead to the defeat of the whole left in Labour. The right allowed moribund parties to develop. What attraction was there for the failed policies of Labour governments? Where socialists ran local parties, mass membership campaigns were launched. There was something for working class people to join and fight alongside. And it was electorally popular too, as the success of the Liverpool council between 1983 and 1987 proved. The irony now is that Unite has recruited to Labour in Falkirk West, and the Labour officials and Blairites are up in arms! The same arguments that were used against Militant 30 years ago are now deployed against the biggest trade union in the country! The outcome of Falkirk West is unclear but the conclusions for trade unionists are not. New Labour will protect its right-wing policies against the organised working class. Trade unions will have to come to the conclusion that Labour is no longer the party it formed in 1900 and that a genuine mass working class party has to be built. Lambeth councillor Kingsley Abrams has lost his appeal to rejoin the Labour group in the borough. Kingsley was originally suspended for abstaining in the council in 2010 on a vote to implement cuts. Since then, he has continued to oppose cuts with the backing of his trade union, Unite, of which he is an executive council member. Continued suspension will mean he will be ineligible to stand for reselection as a Labour candidate for the 2014 borough elections. Local supporters and Unite activists will no doubt be considering the options that Kingsley could take as part of an anti-cuts platform in Lambeth. To me this is more evidence of unites bankrupt strategy of funding labour to the hilt undemocratically I might add as the membership are not allowed a say on what the unions political fund is spent on. Clearly trying to reclaim the labour party is a dead end strategy with unite alone trying its hand here and there Falkirk has been the only place where they have any sort of success and now the right wing are kicking back already so can you imagine if the union launched a full scale recruitment drive to the party. Which they have already tried with the aim of recruiting 5000 to the labour party yet only a tiny figure around 600 have joined and even those will soon find out like I did how undemocratic and how anti worker the party is today. What unite and other trade unions who still to this day fund this rotten capitalist party and back anti cuts candidates opening the political fund up to a democratic process giving members a say what they’d like their membership subs to fund. Len and others in unite will be in for a long bloody battle if they carry on with this strategy there will be a big battle between labour and unite if labour do regain power in 2015 and carry on making the cuts which they are sure to do this will force unite to fight back with their membership moving to the left for sure and with labour moving further to the right if that was possible will only further tensions between the two. With thanks to socialist party comrade Kevin Parslow, Unite 1/1228 branch secretary (personal capacity)

Socialist candidate in the USA making big impact

In the US this autumn many will ask who should we vote for ? there is a clear need now fora new party, a party representing the interests of the 99% and the working class. As Socialist alternative in the USA we are running candidates where we can. Below is a interview with one of our candidates running against a democrat and exposing their role as a second capitalist big business party. Interview with Kshama Sawant in Seattle Socialist Alternative (CWI supporters in the US) Kshama Sawant, a Socialist Alternative candidate in Seattle, is challenging Democratic House Speaker Frank Chopp in the general election for Washington’s 43rd Legislative District. Sawant achieved unprecedented primary election results that had her winning second place in both Positions 1 and 2 of the district. She took some time out from campaigning to talk to Justice newspaper. Kshama Sawant Q: Why are you running as a socialist? I believe that if we’re going to effect change, we have to be bold. That means not hiding behind false labels. More and more people, when asked, will tell you that they prefer socialism over capitalism. And it is obvious why: Capitalism has failed the 99%, whereas socialism stands for genuine democracy and equality. A better world is possible! That better world starts with the working class, the 99%, realizing that we are powerful! I am running as a socialist to show that there are alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, both of whom represent the interests of the giant corporations. I’m calling for independent candidates of the 99% to run against the corporate politicians in every race! This is just the first step for us in a process of building movements challenging the power of the 1%. Q: What does a socialist candidate offer that a Democratic Party candidate does not? I will be a voice for everyday people in Olympia. Unlike my Democratic opponent, I will put the interests of the 99% first. Look at the money. My campaign is completely funded by ordinary people; meanwhile, my opponent has received tens of thousands of dollars from corporations and the super wealthy. After seeing where his money comes from, it is no surprise that he has consistently voted to slash the budget for social programs like health care and education. I will not only fight to reinstate and expand programs such as Basic Health, but I will also make sure that true single-payer health care is on the agenda in Washington. I will fight to make a quality education available to all, not just to those who have the means to afford it. I will make expanding mass transit and green energy a priority. Unlike the Democrats, I will fight for taxes on corporations and the very wealthy in Washington, who currently benefit from the most regressive tax code in the country. With this revenue, all of these programs can be easily funded. Another difference between myself and the Democrats is that I strive to help build movements. As an Occupy Seattle activist I worked to do just that. History shows the only way real change has been achieved is when people work together to make it happen. The Democratic Party functions to stifle these movements. We’ve seen it time and time again, with the antiwar movement of the early 2000s to the labor union struggle in Wisconsin last year. Q: What do you say to those claiming you can’t change anything through corporate-dominated electoral systems? I don’t think history shows that to be correct. Look at how the Canadians won universal health care. Canadian workers began running independent candidates and eventually built the New Democratic Party. The party grew in popularity, threatening big business and Canada’s main political parties. It became clear that for the ruling class to retain their electoral power, they’d need to give some concessions, in this case universal health care. Ultimately, it’s mass movements that bring about fundamental change. During a presidential election year, many more people are paying attention to politics. Running in elections allows us to reach more people with our ideas and effectively build the movement, particularly when there is such anger with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Examples from history show that it is possible to build working-class parties that do not function as electoral machines like the two major corporate parties. Instead, they are parties that work for the interests of ordinary people, fighting for jobs that pay a living wage, for free, universal health care, for affordable housing, defending pensions and protecting the environment. We need a party of working people, and running candidates that challenge the corporate politicians is the first step toward building that party. Q: What is the most important message you want to give to others thinking of challenging the two main parties? Now is the time! There is increasing support for breaking from the two-party system. This anger at the Democrats, in particular, is evident in the strong showing for our candidate in the primary elections earlier this month. We won over 9% of the vote against a well-liked Democrat, Jamie Pederson, in position 1 and over 11% o f t he vote in position 2 as a write-in candidate against the more vulnerable Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp. These votes show how people are angry at the two corporate parties and are looking for an alternative to challenge the status quo in electoral politics. Winning both races, itself, has increased the media attention and the number of people wanting to get involved with the campaign. The unusual election result gave our campaign the opportunity to switch races and run against the second most powerful Democrat in Washngton State. Running against the House Speaker will provide our campaign with a larger platform from which we can inject our ideas into the stale debate on how to address the economic crisis gripping the state. When I’m out talking to people in the 43rd District I ’m hearing that working people, the unemployed, youth and the elderly are increasingly finding that capitalism isn’t working for them. After hearing me loudly proclaim, “Stop the budget cuts; elect a socialist candidate,” one guy told me, as he backtracked to our table, “Budget cuts are a ***! I NEED one of those [leaflets].” There is real openness to socialist ideas. Many youth and workers have said, “Socialism, YES!” when they meet us on the streets. So, it’s obvious that ordinary people are energized by a campaign that isn’t beholden to corporate America and is speaking out for the needs of the 99%. We need to build a mass movement, independent from both big business parties, as an initial step to break corporate control of U.S. politics and to start transforming the country and the world!