tip off

Why the union movement should divorce the ALP

The two organisations have had a long history, but the past few years of politics shows their union is no longer viable.

In the United Kingdom, you could hardly say that Labour and its leader Ed Miliband are riding high. Having sat at no more than a 3% lead over the Tories for some months, they’ve now fallen to 1% — well within the margin of error. Nevertheless, even the 1% margin has been enough for the party to believe that it is on track for victory, for one simple reason — and its name is UKIP. The batty UK Independence Party, though lacking a single seat in the House of Commons, has managed to consistently poll 10%, most of it taken from the Tories, and making UKIP a valid fourth party. And in a first-past-the-post system, that could prove disastrous. Given that Miliband has moved the party to the Left from its New Labour nadir while keeping many of the shire votes it needs to win, that’s not nothing.

So there was considerable gnashing of teeth when Left filmmaker Ken Loach made a public call this week for a new Left party to replace Labour, arguing for Left Unity — one of two or three distinct groups floating around to offer this sort of positionality. There’s been no groundswell to turn these groups into parties, and splitting Labour (at the Right end last time) has spelt disaster before. So it would be in the UK — but in Australia, it’s exactly what should be considered. Not a new party, but something more modest, yet possibly more effective — separate candidacies by a progressive trade union list in key seats and the Senate. In this case, it is not the Left that is leaving the party, but the party that is leaving the Left.

The campaign to separate Labor from the unions is in full swing. There is no doubt that the relationship has to be revised, that the union-factions-party connection promotes sclerosis and contentless “microfactions” — really gangs — coalesced around a charismatic figure, or David Feeney. But that is not really the main impetus for the new push for separation, which is being run out of The Australian, in the space between its obsessive and grinding anti-18C and anti-ABC campaigns. The Labor-union separation push is coming from the party’s pro-market forces, who want to wind back such commitment as the Rudd/Gillard government had made, and present the party as little more than a steward of the markets, extending “opportunity” through further neoliberalisation — and caring little, it would seem, about the greater entrenching of every sort of inequality that such a process represents.

They’re a strange mob, Labor’s gung-ho marketistas. They’re led by some, such as Craig Emerson, who have compared Australia unfavourably to the United States, admiring the latter’s dynamism (and unruffled by its huge class of working poor, backwardness and public squalor), and by Michael Costa, who swapped a youthful obsessive Trotskyism for a midlife crisis obsessive Hayekism, both sought out for psychological reasons rather than for a real progressive politics. When Costa’s protege, Cassandra Wilkinson, announced she was signing on with the Centre for Independent Studies for a few months and detailed what a daring move this was, it was — well, as shocking as that time when Michael Stipe came out. Really? You’re joining a right-wing think tank? What a surprise. Next you’ll be saying Paul Howes might be seeking a position in the corporate world.

The truth is, Labor’s marketeers are symptomatic of a deeper-run process …”

The truth is, Labor’s marketeers are symptomatic of a deeper-run process, whereby the separation of the culture/knowledge producer class from which Labor’s elite comes from the mass groups it purports to represent is now so total that no sympathy runs between them. The public remains far more collective, nationalist, protectionist, and statist than the head members of both major parties — who share a mutual sympathy at the stupidity of their own supporters in rejecting neoliberalism. Their support for market solutions is different from the application of it by Hawke/Keating — even though Keating remains a fetish object for them. They regard the neoliberal market not merely as an efficient form, but as a moralising and disciplinary force, to shape a public that would otherwise become lazy and undynamic, and, you know, want a life or something.

Progressive unions should recognise that this is happened, and that the party that was originally constituted as a Labour/Union Representation Committee has now become the opposite of that — the pro-market leadership projects such ideas onto Labor, with a barely concealed hostility for the values of solidarity and full humanity of the worker that the union movement represents. It has become anti-representation, for which union dues still foot the bill.

So key progressive unions should re-represent themselves, a more social democratic set of policies, and their members in the electoral sphere. Half a dozen unions — the CFMEU, the NTEU, ETU and others — could run a candidate in a dozen or so key seats across the country, where the Greens are competitive with Labor. Unlike the dire situation in the UK, the preferential system has been designed to make this a viable process. Such candidates may only get 5% or so — but they would only need 5% to play a key role, scare Labor shitless with a Labor/Greens preference split, or open ticket, or by supporting a high-profile independent in key seats.

The great advantage of such a move would be that it would cement a larger progressive electoral vote bloc than the Greens can currently manage, as it would finally draw away another tranche of Labor stalwarts who, for class and cultural reasons, can’t bring themselves to support the Greens. The Greens might get nervous about it — but since their class base is overwhelmingly in the culture/knowledge/policy class, they cannot fully represent the people that might be attracted by a union/labour list either. Above all, it would expose how threadbare is the support for Labor’s market fundamentalists, a tiny insider elite parasitic on a host party.

Likely? Not from any of the large core unions that continue to support, year in and out, pollies who want to marginalise their members and their world view. These things don’t happen and don’t happen and then they do, and everything changes. If the will is there, and a willingness to risk the margin of error.

23
  • 1
    fredex
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Thoughtful, provocative article.

  • 2
    paddy
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    coalesced around a charismatic figure, or David Feeney

    ROTFL You’re a treasure Guy.

  • 3
    David Coady
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Well said for the most part Guy. However, it’s not true that the public is more statist than the leaders of both major parties (whether they are more collectivist or nationalist is debatable). No one could be more statist than our current political elites, who currently give bipartisan support for draconian anti-terrror laws, draconian drug laws, endlessly increasing the powers of ASIO, not to mention the persecution of Assange, Snowden and other “enemies of the State”.

  • 4
    Elvis
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Rundle for president

  • 5
    linda
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Seems a bit defeatist to just state / accept that Greens “cannot fully represent the people that might be attracted by a union/labour list either”.
    Greens have industry & manufacturing policies that approach future market constraints realistically - unlike major parties who seem intent on pretending that we can all keep waltzing to a never-ending “growth” that isn’t doomed by realities of finite resources.
    Are you proposing that “workers” are unable to understand this? Surely not. I would agree that at this stage of the game a majority don’t accept my contentions, but they soon will - when the physical realities start to bite harder.
    I agree that unions should split from ALP - because the ALP is effectively dead as a progressive force and some unions are so backward they should never have been affiliated (SDA) or should have joined the DLP.
    But I reject the idea that Greens and workers cant join in an effective political force. And if some of the union leaders had real long-term interests of members at heart (to say nothing of their members children) they would be telling them this too.

  • 6
    Shaniq'ua Shardonn'ay
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    I would suggest that some of the unions with a larger female population in their base could certainly start looking hard at their labor connections. Nurses, Childcare Workers, Aged & Disability Care workers certainly seem to be caught up in the ‘free market’, hence their pay and conditions are pretty cruddy compared with the average construction worker.

  • 7
    Adam Ford
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    And this is why the left fails time and time again.

    So, the real problem is simply that Labor is run by neoliberals? And your solution to that is to run a series of micro-Bandts who would be targeting almost exclusively sitting socialist left members. And the evidence that one Bandt could wreak anything of consequence by virtue of his existence is … well … non-existant.

    The whole “future of the left” thing is basically bogged down everywhere around these sorts of issues. It needs a significantly less facile and partisan approach if we’re ever to move beyond.

    And ffs, you’ve tagged Paul Howes after mentioning him once in the article in passing. Or maybe Paul’s name auto-tags itself whenever typed. Either way - more oxygen where it’s not needed.

  • 8
    Exactly!
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    I have been saying the same thing for years.

    The trouble is the union movement has been captured by the same careerists who infect the ALP. My mind goes back to the union amalgamation push lead by Hawke and Keating in the early 1990’s. Looking back, I cannot see what this achieved but to create large union bureaucracies alienated from their members, in the image of the ALP.

    These unions became career vehicles for non-radical union officials who used the networks to advance their non-radical careers in politics.

    This occurred at about the same time as the ALP offered stick to the Pilots and facilitated the legal assault on the BLF. Can anyone remember the ALP paying employers to withstand BLF strike action and sending the air force in to break the pilots strike, apart from me?

    A whole generation of these bureaucrats have come and gone through the union movement and the ALP and it is hard to tell a Craig Thompson from a Michael Williamson from a Martin Ferguson from a Sam Dastyari from a Paul Howes or any of them.

    While there is every reason for the unions running independent candidates at elections or disaffiliating from the ALP or funding the Greens, the alienation and bureaucratisation is so firmly entrenched I cannot see this happening.

    Or putting it the other way, the reason there has been no push for this to happen reflects the bureaucratisation and alienation of the union movement from its members and the movements capture by ALP hacks and right wingers.

    Perhaps it requires one brave union to come out swinging behind a celebrity Senate candidate like the Guy himself to start the ball rolling!

  • 9
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    david

    fair enough - should have said economically statist, to clarify.

    adam-

    it wasnt a future of the left article, it was a simple practical solution. As for targeting SL members - one of the key seats to target would be Batman, currently held by David Feeney. SL much?

  • 10
    Adam Ford
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Well from an ALP member’s perspective, this is very much a “future of the left” article. The broader left can’t keep lobbing stuff out there which effectively excises the ALP from its numbers yet still makes demands of it as if it were in some way beholden to it.

    I did actually delete a caveat from my original post relating to Batman. But it’s kind of the exception that proves the rule

  • 11
    64magpies
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    When you die could you please leave me your brain Mr Rundle?

  • 12
    Tyger Tyger
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Sorry Adam, but what has “the left” to do with today’s ALP? That it remains to the left of the LNP doesn’t make it anything other than what it’s been since Hawke rolled Hayden: a Centrist party that supports pretty much the same pro-business model as the LNP, only reckons the plebs should get a few more scraps from the table and environmental concerns the odd nod and a wink. It’s Hobson’s choice.

  • 13
    Peter Legg
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    Personally I think the way to solve the problem would be for virtually all levels of government to move to a Hare-Clarke preferential system. Under the Hare-Clarke preferential system there is no ‘ticket voting’ as well as the ‘Robson rotation’. This ensures parties not only compete with each other but candidates have to compete against other candidates in their own party. Such a system has meant there’s no market fundamentalists in Tasmanian Labor, with candidates in other parties who actually represent their voters being elected. In my view such a system would get rid of the ‘party hacks’ in Labor without fracturing the party through separate union candidacy.

  • 14
    Patriot
    Posted Thursday, 3 April 2014 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    The left” in Australia is nothing more than a collective of disparate malcontents. Tree-huggers shoulder to shoulder with coal miners, gay rights activists with apologists for Islam, would-be drug liberalisers with anti-smoking/drinking wowsers, and so on. It is a dysfunctional rabble and always will be.

  • 15
    AR
    Posted Friday, 4 April 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Arise Dame Grundle of Champagne Latte.
    Surely you, of all people, remember Militant Tendency? Which lead to the welshing windbag then,inevitably gave the world I’m Tory Plan B (aka Blair - thanks to the Sainted Dave Allen).
    I agree with others here - Green Left is the way forward and they can support each other, hopefully before it becomes too late due to external forces.
    The best way to achieve this is true PR, via D’Ondt or Hare-Clark, but without the iniquitous List system as deployed on the Continent. Not keen on MME personally but it would be better than the current rotten boroughs of privilege & patronage.

  • 16
    AR
    Posted Friday, 4 April 2014 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Only PatrIDiot could meld “gay rights activists with apologists for Islam, would-be drug liberalisers with anti-smoking/drinking wowsers” - the puzzle is why is this cretin allowed to wander the Intertubes and handle sharp objects like words?
    Couldn’t be a paid astroturfer as he’d be(guaranteed a male - no woman would write such drivel) be such poor value for money.
    Or oxygen.

  • 17
    Adam Ford
    Posted Friday, 4 April 2014 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    So, Patriot, which nation’s Left do you support then? And what can we learn from them?

    Oh, also “disparate malcontents” seems a better fit for your own fantastic whinges.

  • 18
    linda
    Posted Friday, 4 April 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Hey “patriot” maybe you should try & explain to the 92 year old Kokoda veteran arrested at Maules Creek the other day - while fighting for the same enviroment that sustains you by the way - that he’s just a “malcontent”, before you go giving yourself such a dishonest moniker. Patriot my arse.

  • 19
    Patriot
    Posted Friday, 4 April 2014 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    How does the guy feel about gay marriage? Beheading those who insult the prophet? Legalising dope? Banning the pokies?

  • 20
    James Nolan
    Posted Saturday, 5 April 2014 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    What is it with rundle sycophants? Time and time again he writes with little imagination and says nothing new. Unions and the ALP should sever ties - now that’s a new perspective. His analysis is simplistic and does nothing to contribute to the debate on the renewal of the left in Australian politics. Stop you pathetic drivelling over this fool.

  • 21
    JohnB
    Posted Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    JN: Did you read the article?

    I, for one, enjoy reading Guy’s stuff specifically because it often links things I have long agreed with to facts that I have either not known or have long forgotten, then presented the whole with a touch of humour and a few colorful asides.

    That is far from “simplistic analysis” or “nothing to contribute”.

    Those who suggest that the Greens are a viable alternative should recall the disastrous effect that they had on the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments due to their complete unpreparedness to listen, to consider or to negotiate. Humility and compromise are two words that must urgently be restored to the Australian Greens’ dictionary.

  • 22
    Exactly!
    Posted Monday, 7 April 2014 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Viable alternative?

    The Greens won 16% of the vote in WA and the ALP won 22% yet there is no expectation the Greens will govern in their own right. And it is not the point whether they are a ‘viable alternative’ or not as people who vote Green are entitled to have the policy defended in negotiations with the ALP and any other party and in Parliament regardless.

    And JohnB could just as easily say it is the ALP that is unprepared to listen, to consider or to negotiate. Think back to the privatisation fiasco in NSW, where despite knowing this policy was death Premier Kristina Keneally continued with the agenda and the ALP was duly annihilated.

    Yet it is the Greens who must restore humility and compromise to its dictionary?

    If the ALP had listened to its left it would not be the soulless bunch of disaffiliated neo-liberal technocrats depended on the authority and money of the state to form and maintain their increasingly conceptually weird and obviously unpopular agenda.

    A section of the left of the ALP has already gone Green, and if certain key unions leave or are kicked out by Bill (classic union / party careerist) Shorten then the possibility of uniting a significant voting bloc in non-ALP left preference swapping parties is both liberating for the left and concerning for the right.

    Meanwhile the ALP will continue to spin around in increasingly concentric circles not knowing what it stands for.

    Crazy stuff? Bring it on Mr Shorten!

  • 23
    Neale Towart
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps a way forward is to look back to the conclusion Tom Mann came to after visiting Australia and New Zealand in the early 20th century. He was actively involved in forming political parties here, and active in unionism at Broken Hill in particular. He was keen on looking at the arbitration system as the “cure” for class ills and his involvement and observations lead him to the conclusion that it was a failure for the working class. That parliamentary politics was a waste and that industrial unionism was a way forward. He did act to implement his ideas in the UK and had great success in 1911. That these ideas and the IWW and syndicalism were a threat was borne out by the military-state destruction of this approach in the US and Aust, and the formation of communist parties that didn’t want to take on board the wobbly ideas. Now I know they were destroyed, but out of those long forgotten ashes ideas can come

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...