UPDATES
E-mail
to hear about site changes, placing 'update' in body of message
With 'leaders' like these, who needs enemies?
New Labour has announced plans to undermine still further the basis of state education through private-sector driven "city academies" and specialist schools aimed at appeasing middle-class voters, without having to worry about any real opposition from the leaders of the teacher unions.
Their judgement was absolutely correct. You could be forgiven for thinking New Labour was announcing the most progressive education policies judging by the reaction. Steve Sinnott, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, could only say: "This five-year plan is a mixture of tried and tested schemes and a leap in the dark, which could be at children's expense. A three-year budget for schools will provide stability and enable schools to plan ahead with greater certainty. But the plan to expand city academies is not based on evidence of success."
David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "Guaranteed three-year funding is precisely what heads need if they are going to deliver higher standards." John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said: "Ring-fenced funding and three-year budgets should bring an end to the problems of the present system in which the government and local authorities blame each other when anything goes wrong and schools are left to sort out the difficulties."
All these statements indicate how far union leaders have gone down New Labour's road of commercialisation of state provision. They accept the framework set out by the government in the vague hope that things won't turn out as bad in practice. What a way to represent your members! It was left to the Liberal Democrat Phill Willis to tell MPs that the measures announced were indeed Conservative. "This is Tory policy being delivered by a Labour government."
The teacher union leadership is not alone. Kevin Curran, general secretary of the GMB union, whose organisation has decided to withhold extra funding to New Labour in an attempt to make the party "change course", is another case in point. Writing in The Guardian (July 9) Curran claims that New Labour has "failed to understand" the need for a "value system" and "culture" based on "collectivism, inclusiveness and a shared understanding of and strong commitment to democracy". His main charge against the capitalist New Labour government is that "it does not have the confidence or the conviction to share power".
Curran's call for the party to "to ditch the New Labour approach",
which is based on ignoring the trade unions and designing policies in
favour of corporate power, is intended to avoid the issue and lock his
membership into a futile initiative aimed at resurrecting Old Labour from
the dead.
He has to admit that he could not ask GMB members to maintain affiliation - but only if there is no change in policies mid-way through a third-term New Labour government. This is a truly incredible argument. He admits the current government is hostile to the unions and calls for a change in policy. Then he talks about reconsidering his union's position - in the year 2007 or 2008 if nothing happens. In the meantime, presumably, his members have to go out and vote for New Labour at the next election! Opportunism or what.
Curran's real concern is that the trade unions will eventually be "cast adrift from the political process" and be forced to concentrate "on narrow employment-related issues" and that "our potential influence will become so diverse and diluted as to be of no consequence". This is the language of trade union bureaucracy. Officials like Curran simply want to be on the inside, "part of the delivery of reform", as he put it.
Two things are clear, however, if not to Curran then to his members. New Labour is not interested in the trade unions except in so far as they back government policies. And trade unionists like firefighters have worked out long ago that this is a reactionary, business government that can never represent their interests.
The time to consider the consequences of this is now - not in three or four years time (when no doubt Curran and his chums will find further reasons for delay). Trade unionists and workers cannot find political or social representation through New Labour or in the sham of parliamentary democracy. Curran's bleating is a pale reflection of this fact.
If the union leaders were serious in aspiring to represent their members they would call a conference to discuss alternative political representation and a total break with New Labour now. Don't hold your breath waiting for that initiative. Be prepared for more hand-wringing from people who are desperate to keep a grip on members who are clearly making up their own minds.
Movement
for a Socialist Future
9 July 2004
