UK Labour reducing union influence

July 10th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

UK is joining Australian Labor in reducing the influence the have on their parties. This should be contrasted with NZ which is moving in the other direction and has given the unions a direct vote in the future Party leadership.

The Independent reports:

Trade unions will no longer be allowed to enrol three million members a year to Labour ranks, Ed Miliband will announce on Tuesday in a dramatic effort to draw a line under the crisis gripping the party, following allegations of corrupt practice in candidate selection.

His move threatens a backlash from union chiefs – notably Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, the country’s largest union – as it could pave the way to a reduction of their influence over Labour conference decisions.

Under his plans, which he will herald as the biggest party reforms in a generation, individual unionists will have to take a conscious decision to opt in to Labour membership rather than finding themselves signed up en masse.

This is how it should be. Union members should make an individual decision to join a political party, not be mass subscribed by their union.

Under the Miliband plans, which Labour says it wants in place as soon as possible, each trade unionist would be asked each year whether they wanted to opt in to party membership.

Party sources acknowledged the move would initially deprive Labour of members and income, but insisted it would ultimately help strengthen its relationship with unionists.

Mr Miliband will say: “I do not want any individual to be paying money to the Labour party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so.

Superb. Will David Shearer say the same? That would be a far better reform than a man ban.

Sky News quotes Miliband as saying:

“I do not want any individual to be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so,” he said.

Hear hear. Let’s hear the same from a NZ Labour leader.

Tags: , ,

9 Responses to “UK Labour reducing union influence”

  1. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    I doubt Shearer would want to be forced to use his own millions (in off shore accounts) to pay for Labour party campaigning when he still has access to fees extracted from the lowest paid workers so he doesn’t need to dip into his own rich pockets.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wat dabney (3,434 comments) says:

    Interesting to see Labour UK implode as it is exposed as nothing but a vehicle for special interests to plunder the workers. No different from Wall Street bankers. And Labour NZ is exactly the same: a legalised cartel which in any other context would be a criminal organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. publicwatchdog (1,816 comments) says:

    How much influence do the employer and corporate ‘Unions’ have over the National (and ACT) Parties?

    eg: The Committee for Auckland and NZ Property Council?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wat dabney (3,434 comments) says:

    That’s why the state needs to be kept as small as possible Penny, so there is hardly any scope for the politically organised to plunder the rest.

    It’s why, for example, the power companies should be sold-off into a competitive market: so Labour and the rest cannot again use them as a regressive stealth-tax mechanism to line their own pockets at the expense of the poorest.

    But you keep cheerleading for the corrupt cartels, love. Fuck the poor, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Fuck the poor, eh?

    She just said (on GD) that she is already taken, so no nooky for the poor, only tax. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thor42 (764 comments) says:

    This is an excellent move!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    Privatised Politics
    In a nutshell, since the late nineteenth century the primary policy-making and planning institutions in Houston have been extra-political, private bodies, not the public sector. According to the staff of the Houston Business Journal, City Hall was an extension, a working arm, of the Houston Chamber of Commerce . .. The long term influence of City Hall continuity and goals provided by the Houston Chamber of Commerce could not be over-estimated . In fact, one had only to study the goals listed by the Chamber of Commerce each year to get a good indication of what City Hall would be working on in years and decades to come . 20
    And this is not idle boasting . The dominant role of the Chamber of Commerce
    has been a relatively recent development .” Control in the city prior to the late 1950s rested in the hands of a small group of developers, industrialists, and finance capitalists who met informally in Suite 8F of the Lamar Hotel in downtown Houston
    ………………….
    see that drunken looking chap who has come to humiliate the Christchurch City Council… the (same) pit bull who sacked Environment Canterbury….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    Property researcher Hugh Pavletich has good reason to feel pleased with his lobbying of political and industry players about housing affordability.
    Only four years after his first annual Demographia survey many of the basic premises have now become an accepted part of the lexicon used by political leaders, property players and researchers.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=20225&cid=16&cname=Property

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAHU1zq0WH4
    Nick Smith says: “land supply”
    Bill English says: “land supply”
    John Key says: “land supply”
    Let’s all sing in the developers choir!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andronicus (185 comments) says:

    In Australia, Rudd is proposing that both the Labor caucus and party membership have a say in selection of the leader. Union members would get a vote if they are members of the party.

    The ALP has to break the stranglehold the unions have over the organisation. Not only is this unhealthy, it gives characters like Redbaiter undeserved ammunition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.