Sharon Graham: Unite's Labour affliation 'getting harder to justify'
The end may be at hand. On July 11th, 800 Unite industrial and regional representatives gathered in Brighton for its policy conference, where they voted on what could be soon regarded as a landmark motion in the history of the modern British-left: to suspend the membership of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and to 're-examine' the union's long-standing funding of the Labour Party. Only a 'handful' of people stood against it.
'There seems to be a bit of shock that the conference voted that way,' Graham told me over the phone.'There were only a handful of people that voted against that in a group [which] represents 1.1 million workers. That should be a red flag for the government.'
The source of Unite and Graham's anger are protracted strikes by waste refuse workers employed by Birmingham City Council – over job reformation and hefty cuts in pay – and the unsatisfactory response from the local Labour-run authority, as well as their national colleagues in Westminster. 'The abdication of responsibility here has been outrageous,' Graham said of Labour's response to the action, which began last summer, and has seen tens of thousands of tons worth of rubbish rot on the streets of England's second city. 'Leaving these workers to wither on the vine is not what I expect from a Labour government.'
Rayner, whose ministerial brief covers local government, has deferred responsibility to end the strikes to Birmingham City Council: 'This is a local dispute, and it is right that the negotiations are led locally,' she told the Commons in April.
But Rayner's justification for absconding soon switched from giving the council autonomy, to ''legal reasons… which is very odd,' claimed Graham, 'because there is no legal reason why [she] couldn't get involved.' The government-appointed commissioners that help manage the council's operations – following it declaring effective-bankruptcy in 2023 – also report directly to Rayner.
Rayner eventually got involved in the dispute. 'She visited Birmingham [in April], and went to speak to the leader of a council [John Cotton]… who's not been in one single negotiation,' Graham said. '[Rayner] went to speak to the strike-breakers – the agency workers who broke the dispute – but didn't have one conversation with the [still-striking] workers. She didn't ask to meet them; didn't ask to sit down somewhere, talk to them; didn't want to really understand what was going on.'
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Does Graham consider this scabbing by Rayner, a former a trade union rep? Graham refused to offer her own view, but projected the angst of her members: 'I think there's something wholly wrong with a decision to ignore workers who are losing up to a quarter of their pay, and essentially picking a side. That's what it felt like for the workers. They were extremely upset about what happened that day.'
Despite Labour and Rayner being tied to unions, the industrial angst the Birmingham strikes represent is a 'microcosm of the whole', according to Graham. Resident doctors voted to stage five days of industrial action in the same week Unite staged its turn against Labour.
'I don't expect to win every conversation with the Labour government,' said Graham, 'but… I expect a Labour government to intervene, and I certainly expect Angela Rayner – who talks about workers' rights – to see what is happening, roll her sleeves up and find out what's going on. She didn't do that. That's not acceptable, and our conference took the decision to suspend her membership.'
Competition will be fierce to secure Unite's vast funding should it divorce from Labour. It would be a particularly costly split for the latter, which receives £1.4m a year in affiliation fees from Graham's union. Labour is in a 'difficult financial position', an internal document notes, and is under a 'recovery plan' in 2025 in order to bring finances to a 'planned but manageable deficit'. The party needs 'at least £4m to adequately resource the 2026 elections'.
Is Graham tempted to channel Unite's heft to the incoming Sultana-Corbyn party, or even an 'eco-populist' Greens led by the emerging Zack Polanski?
'That's all a sideshow,' she said of the speculation. But following any hypothetical disaffiliation with Labour, Graham added, 'I think it's more likely that we would focus on building a strong, independent workers union that was the true, authentic voice for workers, and use that power to move political debate.'
But just because there is no imminent threat to Labour's union funding, there is no room for complacency for Keir Starmer and his party. People who 'flirt' with the disaffiliation question typically assume that it's only ever over 'the internal Labour [Party] squabble of the day,' Graham noted. They may have been true before – but not now.
'Actually,' Graham added, 'this is the first time that this has been done because of workers,' something that Labour has lost perspective on. 'Before the election, I couldn't go on a picket line [without] people saying: 'We need a Labour government'… [Now] I go to those same picket lines to negotiate, and those same people are saying: 'What the hell is going on here?''
Unite's threat to withdraw its funding and affiliation is seemingly not a bluff. 'Let's put it this way,' Graham began, reflecting on the overwhelming decision taken at Unite's meeting last week, 'had that policy conference been a rules conference – because at a rules conference, we determine [our] affiliation to Labour – then those workers would have voted to disaffiliate.' The next Unite rules conference is scheduled for 2027.
That gives Labour time to fix things. And outreach has already begun. 'There have been conversations in relation to the government itself but I don't want to go down that road [publicly],' Graham revealed. 'I don't want to scupper anything… in that regard.' After airing their dirty laundry for all to see last week, Labour and Unite are now seemingly conducting marriage counseling in private.
But existential questions for Labour and Unite remain. 'Now, we are affiliated to Labour, we have a history of being affiliated to Labour, but you can't just blindly affiliate and blindly pay members' money into an organisation that, those members feel, is not speaking for them,' Graham told me. 'The Labour Party… [is] about being the voice for workers; not being embarrassed to be the voice for workers – but [being] very clear so that workers know, 'if you vote Labour, they're on your side'.
'If more and more people are saying, 'Hang on a minute, I'm not sure about that anymore', then it's harder to justify the affiliation.'
[See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
As Labour targets trans rights, Scotland can do better
Some 38 years on and some other questions spring to mind. Firstly, were Labour really that fun in the 1980s? I wish I'd known her. And – more depressingly – was all that progress so fragile, so insubstantial, that nearly four decades later, instead of celebrating a new Labour Government as champions of LGBT+ rights, we must fear them? Fear has been the overriding emotion since the General Election last year, when the least right-wing contender for Prime Minister made flip-flopping on trans rights into an Olympic sport (it must be his biological advantage that allows him to excel in that, I suppose). Since Labour took office, those fears have proven well-founded. READ MORE: Uniformed police pulled from Glasgow Pride over 'impartiality' concerns From pushing full steam ahead with the Tories' efforts to strip back trans healthcare, to Keir Starmer's statements about trans people's right to access services based on their gender identity, it quickly became clear that any dream of a reprieve from regression would remain just that. And now, 25 years after the Labour/LibDem coalition at Holyrood repealed Clause 2A – which barred teachers from 'promoting' homosexuality in schools – and 22 years after Tony Blair's Labour government followed suit for England and Wales, Starmer's Labour have effectively introduced the same approach for transgender identity. In new statutory guidance published last week by the UK Government on sex and relationships education, teachers in England are told that, while they should teach about the legally protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they should avoid using materials which 'encourage pupils to question their gender'. That such a statement can be included in official guidance underlines that the same old unfounded fears about gay people are now being rehashed for our trans siblings. The premise at the heart of this directive is that a child or young person can be encouraged to be transgender, just like Section 28 implied an inherent risk of homosexuality being 'promoted' to children. Welcome to the Gender Agenda, just like the Gay Agenda, except Labour and the Tories are united over it. Let's just be clear: these are not ideas that any progressive political party should be endorsing, never mind mandating. Labour knew this 40 years ago when it came to gay people. They certainly knew it after watching the harm that Margaret Thatcher's government caused to both young people and teachers by introducing a policy predicated on these falsehoods. So how can this same party – insofar as it is the same party – wilfully do the same to trans people now? In the same section, schools are told to avoid materials that 'could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children', and to 'consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance'. As with other aspects of sex and relationships education, parents have the right to withdraw children from lessons. This part is familiar, not because it harks back to decades past – although it might – but because this is also the policy regarding sex education here in Scotland. Of course, Scotland has also introduced LGBT+-inclusive education across the curriculum, so it should not be possible to prevent a child from learning about trans or queer people at all. However, the assumption behind this parental rights approach is worth examining because it has taken centre stage in recent debates – and Scotland is far from immune. Amidst the moral outrage and proliferation in conspiracy theories of recent years about the supposedly shocking materials children are being exposed to in schools, the number of parents in Scotland withdrawing their kids from sex ed has quadrupled in the last five years. When those figures were reported in April, the Tories commented in support of parents' right to pull kids from these lessons, while Alba's deputy leader Neale Hanvey blamed the Scottish Government's 'gender policy difficulties' and its 2021 schools' 'sex survey' for the spike. But why should we accept that parents have an absolute right to control what their children learn? There are many subjects on which we simply wouldn't accept that. For example, if a parent believes the Earth is flat, should they have a right to pull their children out of classes that teach otherwise? It's one thing when a handful of children are withdrawn from lessons for religious reasons – although I would also quibble with that – but when media-confected hysteria is driving these numbers through the roof, it might be time to look again at who we are allowing to dictate the next generation's access to knowledge, and why. Although there's not much chance of that in England, where the Government's own guidance is being written to appease the fearmongers. Within the document, schools are instructed not to 'teach as fact that all people have a gender identity', and to instead be mindful that there is 'significant debate' around this and 'be careful not to endorse any particular view'. Only 15 years from the introduction of the Equality Act – by the last Labour Government – and it's now Labour policy that, unlike the other protected characteristics, there is so much debate around trans people that teachers should present 'for and against' arguments about them to children. Coming just months after the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act, and the various and bizarre extrapolations which have ensued from that, this shouldn't be surprising. When Starmer wouldn't commit during his election campaign to trans-inclusive policies, or to just about anything, his Government was hardly going to seek to upset the trans-exclusionary crowd now when support for his party is tanking. This is what's most frightening about the Labour leadership. About a lot of political leaders, when push comes to shove. It's not that they're driven by a deeply held belief that any of this is going to make life better for women, girls, children. Nor is it that they're fuelled by a hatred of trans people. Don't get me wrong, some of them are surely transphobic. The ease with which they've transitioned, if you will, from the role of rainbow-splashed allies to vanguards of the assault on trans people's legal rights alludes to underlying prejudices shaken free of pretence. READ MORE: Our youth orchestra shows the power of children's rights in action Above all, though, all of the political posturing – the capitulating and contorting, the derailing and distorting – that has come to define this Labour Government's approach (and one day, its legacy) on this issue can be condensed and explained by one word: power. When the tides turn, this Labour Party will do the only thing that those intent upon power and preserving their own self-interest above all else will ever do – grab a surfboard and ride the fucking wave. And rest assured, if they can do that now, about this issue, they'll do it again about the next thing, and the next thing. But here's the catch: when it comes to vilifying and ostracising marginalised people, there is no sweet spot that unscrupulous politicians can hit to satisfy the agitators. A case in point: so-called 'gender critical' campaigners are still angry about the Labour education guidance because it doesn't go far enough. This should be a lesson to the Scottish Government, present and future, while it contends with considerable pressures from those who'd like to see it turn its back on trans people. It's also a lesson they might reflect on when deciding whether to progress with legislation which is bound to be met with similar backlash. You can't control the fires of hate by adding just enough fuel, or by ignoring it – you can only fight it head-on. Rhoda Meek returns next week
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
'Vulnerability' left in UK constitution after UKIMA review
The Internal Market Act (UKIMA) faced fierce criticism from devolved administrations when it was introduced in 2020 to regulate trade within the UK following EU withdrawal. They argued it enabled Westminster to override devolved decision-making in areas such as public health and food standards in pursuit of a unified UK market. After winning power in 2024, the Labour Government announced it would be reviewing the legislation. The findings of the UKIMA review were published last Tuesday. The review introduced procedural changes – including a mechanism to fast-track exclusions from the act where the economic impact is less than £10 million per year – and pledged to prioritise the use of common frameworks, post-Brexit agreements intended to manage formerly EU-governed policy areas collaboratively. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: I was steered by BBC bosses on how to report. I ignored it However, the review's changes are not legally binding and could easily be reversed, Professor Thomas Horsley, a constitutional law expert at the University of Liverpool, said. 'All they've done is said, 'these legal powers that exist, we commit politically to exercise them in accordance with what we agree in the common frameworks',' Horsley said. 'But that is a political commitment, and we all know that intergovernmental commitments can be – even the strongest ones – can be disregarded by a particular recalcitrant government in London. 'So the constitutional vulnerability, if you want to put it like that, remains.' He also said the £10m threshold below which UKIMA exclusions would be fast-tracked was a 'low bar', noting that it could be met by the turnover of a single company. Following the publication of Labour's review, both the SNP Government in Edinburgh and the Welsh Government in Cardiff welcomed changes to the exclusions process – but called for UKIMA to be fully repealed. Welsh Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies (Image: Welsh Government) Huw Irranca-Davies, the Deputy First Minister of Wales, said: 'We particularly welcome the commitment to implement any exclusions agreed via common frameworks, which should improve the functioning of the UK internal market. The common frameworks operate on a clear set of principles which fully respect devolution and include dispute resolution mechanisms. 'However, it is our long-standing and consistent view that the act should be repealed and replaced with a system, underpinned by legislation, designed around the common frameworks.' Scottish Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson hit out in stronger terms, saying UKIMA 'introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers'. 'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable,' he went on. READ MORE: Kate Forbes calls for Internal Market Act to be scrapped 'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace UKIMA, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of UKIMA.' Horsley said he could understand the argument being made by the devolved governments, that the 'common frameworks can do it all' and UKIMA is unnecessary. 'It is precarious because if things don't get agreed through the common frameworks – or a future UK Government decides, well, these political commitments we made, we're changing our mind – the legal powers are still there,' he said. 'This review doesn't change the legal framework, it just says, wait a minute, we're going to park it in the background and we're going to try and work using more intergovernmental political mechanisms, the common frameworks.' However, Horsley said that although the Labour Government's review has resulted only in political pledges, it was 'definitely a move in the right direction and a move that speaks to the ambition of the UK Government to reset relations'. He went on: 'There are other parts of UKIMA which are just not discussed. [The devolved governments] would like to reopen discussions around the direct payments that can be made from London in devolved areas. So there are things that are not so narrowly related to intratrade that are still rubbing up wounds. 'But in terms of just narrowly looking at UKIMA and the market access principles, there are some positive things there and some clear commitments from the UK Government towards more consensual policy making … which is very different to obviously the more abrasive approach which preceded under previous governments.' READ MORE: John Swinney sets out 3-point plan for fresh independence push In late 2024, Horsley was one of four constitutional legal experts to co-author a report on UKIMA which concluded that reform of the legislation was 'essential to restore intergovernmental trust'. Asked if Labour's review had provided that essential reform, he said: 'What this review shows is that there is more work to be done, but it's around those common frameworks. 'It's now shifting the attention to making the common frameworks work. These are not off-the-shelf things that are super functioning and solve all the problems. 'So the work between the governments now is going to have to be making those common frameworks work.' Douglas Alexander is UK Trade Policy Minister (Image: UK Parliament) After the review was published, UK Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged there were 'real concerns' about how the laws have operated, and pledged "improvements'. Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'. He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
Backbench MPs should remain loyal to constituents, not parties
The very use of that term speaks volumes about how the party leadership may regard both its troops and any perceived dissension from the party line. This follows a year-long freeze of her Labour credentials dating from a letter Diane wrote to The Observer in early 2023. It also follows the suspension of seven other 'miscreants' who had the temerity to suggest the two-child cap should be history and had no place under a Labour Government. And, of course, the massive recent rebellion over changes to welfare eligibility. Featuring, among very many others, all of the latest MPs to lose the whip. READ MORE: 'Time to take action': What it was like at the national Palestine demo in Edinburgh At which stage, the Labour leadership earnestly assured its flock that it would listen more intently to its backbenchers and absolutely didn't regard the latter as mere 'voter fodder'. Abbott's letter said, not very controversially, that the kind of lifelong racism encountered by black and brown people, differs from the kind of prejudice suffered by Irish people, Travellers and Jewish people. 'Any fair-minded person will know what I meant,' she later said in a statement to BBC Newsnight. Indeed. Surely a textbook example of 'we ken whit she meant'. (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In an interview for James Naughtie's Reflections programme last Thursday, she said she had no regrets about these remarks despite having apologised for them at the time. She reiterated that face colour is an immediate red rag to racists in a way that their identity probably isn't for other minorities. Cue portions of the Labour roof falling on her head. Again. It may be that her real crime was a historical closeness to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. At any rate, the Mother Of The House has now been unceremoniously flung oot the Labour house. You might think that a government with a large majority of seats on under 34% of votes cast in a poll where fewer than 60% of electors bothered to use their vote might display some humility. Rather than take a sledgehammer to crack people denounced as irritating nutcases. Especially since their MPs – more than half of them in parliament for the first time – are there to represent a constituency where two-thirds of electors either didn't vote for them, or simply didn't vote. The Labour Party's draconian attitude to dissenters suggests complacency and a tendency for overreaction. It also suggests they hope their hardline stance will result in fewer Labour MPs willing to take risks. Not so much the firm smack of government as political punishment beatings. From a Scottish perspective, the most instructive victim is Brian Leishman, the luckless Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth. Grangemouth, you will know, was Scotland's solitary refinery, a place the Scottish Labour leader promised to save during the election campaign. Leishman, unsurprisingly, thought he would therefore be on safe ground when he vocally supported the workforce. Alas, that, plus his stance on welfare reform, meant he would instead get his jotters. Without warning. He said, thereafter, that he hadn't been elected to make people poorer. He also argued that he'd been elected 'to be a voice for my constituents across [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]]'. Not, it seems, if that voice fails to chime with the latest stance of his leader. Anas Sarwar's silence on this matter, at the time of writing, has been positively deafening. READ MORE: 55 arrested in Westminster as protests grow over Palestine Action ban The [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]] MP says that the Scottish Labour leader has not been in touch since a WhatsApp message last January. You might have thought he'd pick up the phone over Grangemouth at least, if not over the latest party row which saw one of his own Scots Labour representatives publicly humiliated. However, Leishman says he still supports Sir Keir's leadership and 'I will be out campaigning to get Scottish Labour candidates elected for Holyrood next year. I'll be doing everything I possibly can to get Anas into Bute House'. Each to their own and all that. Also interesting is the role and function of MPs of all parties. They don't have a statutory one, but they do have a code of conduct based on seven principles of 'selflessness, integrity, objectivity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership.' However, the code also acknowledges the challenges faced by MPs when the needs and views of their constituents come into conflict with those of the party whose rosette they sported on election night. Or, as the code puts it: 'As members of a political party, MPs are expected to support and promote the policies and principles of their party. However, this should not come at the expense of their duties to their constituents or the wider public interest.' So let's suppose that the chap representing the workforce at Grangemouth was doing little more than exercising his duty to his constituents and the wider public interest. Not even to mention demonstrating integrity objectivity, and accountability. The code does understand the complexity of the MP's role in a way their parties may not: 'At times a constituent's demands may conflict with party policy and your MP will have to decide where their first loyalty should lie.' And woe betide any MP if their first loyalty is not to their party, it seems. Thus far, the people who found themselves minus the Labour whip were, to a man and woman, all demonstrating their commitment to what used to be thought of as traditional Labour values. For other quite mouthy MPs like the usually admirable Jess Phillips there was instead a plea for party unity and a respect for party discipline. So says the MP who resigned from the Labour front bench in 2023 over the carnage in Gaza, having backed an SNP-instigated vote on a ceasefire. Then she said: 'On this occasion, I must vote with my constituents, my head, and my heart which has felt as if it were breaking over the last four weeks with the horror of the situation in Israel and Palestine.' This time, the tune seems to have changed and she says: 'Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?' Maybe, Jess, they hadn't realised voting for the wider public interest shouldn't be a hanging offence in a party which once described itself as 'a broad church'. Or, as Abbott wrote on a social media post: 'Silencing dissent is not leadership. It's control.' But voting with your constituents, your head and your heart is not apparently an option for others whose inner voice tells them their party has simply got it wrong. Angela Rayner, one time darling of the Labour left, confined herself to saying that the Abbott situation presented 'a real challenge for the party' (sure is)! READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions Rayner is an enigmatic case in point. She was, after all, a prime mover in getting the party to admit Abbott as a Labour candidate after her last long suspension. Labour's very own working-class woman has obviously decided that she can exert more influence as a deputy leader than a serial rebel with a number of causes. You might think that she had rather more in common with Abbott than, for instance, the current Chancellor. But for heavens sake, don't say so out loud if you have a Labour Party card about your person. The moral of this latest debacle is that if you get elected to parliament as a Labour candidate, please be sure to check in your conscience at the door. It has no place in the chamber these days.
