A Footnote to History

[hairyears]

RIP Michael Foot: archetypal Wadhamite - academic and rhetorical brilliance, dedication and an appetite for work, and a social conscience that led him to the Left; politically-ineffective and blinded by a purity of principles that led him to dangerous folly

Comments

[friend_of_tofu]

You're taking a pretty standard line here, and I think it's a bit too standard to add anything. For one, the Labour party didn't just roll over and let Militant do what they wanted - there was active purging of Militant factions.

And, *ahem*:

allowing Trade Unionism to wither as a force for workers' interests, becoming a vehicle for destructive and politically-ambitious opportunists with a taste for power and a cynical disregard for democracy

One thing you really can't accuse trade unions as a rule of being is undemocratic! Speaking as a branch officer and all, I sometimes wish we were allowed to be ever so slightly *less* democratic, so we didn't have to vote on every single thing. But we have to follow the rules in the book, and it's not short.

Accusing the Labour Party of being responsible for the reduced influence of trade unions is like accusing Iraqis of letting their fellow citizens get shot.

[hairyears]

there was active purging of Militant factions.

Yes, eventually.

And the democritisation of trade union branches was uneven: some have always run by debate and a vote, others by diktat. Ask someone what your branch was like thirty years ago! Much has been exaggerated, but you won't need to go far to find hair-raising stories of 'packed' meetings and all opposition shouted down by a venomous clique who emptied the branch account on being forced out - finally - when the National Committee imposed discipline and postal ballots. And *that* was not an initiative Led by 'reform campaigners' in the TUC, or even by the NEC; Kinnock (not Foot!) made use of the 'Witch Hunts' to remove to remove grass-roots support for the radical left, but the ultimate threat that drove it all was fear of sequestration.

[friend_of_tofu]

You speak as if active internal purges within a party are a good thing. Militant factions were severely problematic, but so was the response. Frankly, it only helped the party's opponents, in my view.

I certainly don't doubt examples of inner cliques, sharp practice & active corruption in unions (they are, after all, large organisations, and this kind of thing is found in all kinds of large organisations), but I'd strongly question whether it was ever 'business as usual' for most unions.

[jamesofengland]

The big thing that brings democracy to unions is the Trade Union Act of 1984, after Foot had stepped down. Without a secret ballot, there wasn't much point in demanding votes and the abuses Hairy mentions become relevent. With a secret ballot, they become important; they may even be too important today, but that's in part because there is a bi-partisan (tri-partisan?) belief that unions serve the workers best when they serve the workers, so all parliaments since have worked to increase the process requirements that notionally encourage this.

British trade unions today offer better services and such, but are also much closer to their membership. While in the 80s Solidarity had to turn to US and some European unions because the UK unions were stuffed to the gills with people who supported their oppression, you'd be hard pushed to find unions as openly hostile to the country now.