GMB Union cuts funds to Labour from £1.2m to £150k

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Hope the others cut their funding dramtically too. Labour hasn't had working class interests at it's core for decades now, it's absurd that any union that claims to be working in the interests of it's members would pay any subs to the party that brought you Iraq, PFI, tuition fees and never reversed Thatcher's union laws.

The GMB union is to cut the affiliation funds it gives Labour from £1.2m to £150,000 in the wake of a row over reforms, it has announced.
The union said there would also be cuts in spending on Labour campaigns.
The changes will take effect from the start of next year.
It comes ahead of Ed Miliband's move to reform union funding so individual union members have to opt in to support the party, rather than being automatically affiliated.
Currently unions are easily Labour's biggest donors. Of the £3.14m the party received in the three months from April to June, the GMB gave £486,000.
The GMB said its decision to reduce its funding for Labour reflected its estimate of the number of union members who would be willing to affiliate themselves to it individually following Mr Miliband's change.
At the moment the union automatically affiliates 420,000 of its members to Labour, at £3 each per year,
It estimates about 50,000 of the 650,000 GMB members would actually choose to affiliate with Labour. This figure is derived from the number who took part in the Labour leadership contest in 2010, it said.

(BBc News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23955577 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23955577))

[TheEmancipator]

They have no one else to endorse though, that's the real problem. I mean can you name one political party in the UK that represents working class and?or revolutionary interests? Respect?

I don't have much sympathy for Trade Union leaders either. They can bully workers into submission as much as the bourgeoisie, and in Britain are mostly reformist and paid north of 100k for very little action.

[TaylorS]

Mainstream labor unions have become the "good cop" of Capitalism, keeping workers from getting radicalized. Here in the US unions have been pretty weak ever since all the Communists were purged during the McCarthyism period, they have basically become electoral organs of the Democratic Party.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

They have no one else to endorse though, that's the real problem. I mean can you name one political party in the UK that represents working class and?or revolutionary interests? Respect?
Tusc or Left Unity perhaps?

[CyM]

Both have around 1% of the vote, no?

I think instead of cutting funding, they should take the hard route and actually fight. They were onto something when they tried to get a union candidate elected, this is why the Blairites got so pissed at them.

When your enemy gets pissed and asks you to leave, leaving is the stupidest thing you can do.

And Blair may have brought tuition fees, but who brought Blair? The unions did. They still have one third of the vote in the party and can mount a challenge if they wish. Cutting funding is just a shortcut for right-wing union leaders under pressure from a radicalized base, they have to show they're doing something, but they would rather do nothing. Leaving the party means they don't have to take responsibility for mounting a left-wing challenge to the right-wing politics they helped install in the labour party.

[TheEmancipator]

Tusc

reformist and judging by Bob Crowe's prominence, workerist.


Left Unity perhaps?work in progress. I like the noises coming out of Left Unity for the moment but I'm pretty sure most people here would associate it with the likes of Die Linke, Front de Gauche, SYRIZA, IU, etc who aren't too popular on this website it seems. They are basically a serious Social Democratic Party trying to fill that void left by the increasingly left-liberal/whatever the fuck the Labour Party is these days. They say they want to become ''Labour's UKIP''.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

reformist and judging by Bob Crowe's prominence, workerist.



work in progress. I like the noises coming out of Left Unity for the moment but I'm pretty sure most people here would associate it with the likes of Die Linke, Front de Gauche, SYRIZA, IU, etc who aren't too popular on this website it seems. They are basically a serious Social Democratic Party trying to fill that void left by the increasingly left-liberal/whatever the fuck the Labour Party is these days. They say they want to become ''Labour's UKIP''.
Lol, what's the difference between the reformism of Tusc and the reformism of Left Unity? Both are trying to be the social democratic party that splits the Labour vote, both proclaim they want 'workers control'... the difference is Tusc has actual union backing whereas Left Unity has leftist 'celebrity' (for lack of a better term) backing. The trots involved in Tusc say its utilising the transitional method, same with the trots involved in Left Unity.

[TheEmancipator]

Lol, what's the difference between the reformism of Tusc and the reformism of Left Unity? Both are trying to be the social democratic party that splits the Labour vote, both proclaim they want 'workers control'... the difference is Tusc has actual union backing whereas Left Unity has leftist 'celebrity' (for lack of a better term) backing. The trots involved in Tusc say its utilising the transitional method, same with the trots involved in Left Unity.

Because Left Unity doesn't consider itself as serious a revolutionary movement as the TUSC. It wants to be the UKIP of Labour it said. Sums up their programme.

in the choice between bourgeois politicians, I'd vote Left Unity just as I'd vote Syriza as I said in another thread, to oppose austerity, raised tuition fees, pension cuts and establish a strong platform for leftist discussion. Until a viable revolutionary solution becomes available, I will vote for my personal interests like everyone else does instead of voting white, which goes to the majority party.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Of course, it is always nice to see institutions like Labour suffer. However it is important to note that such unions also have benefited from imperialism and do not represent the working class in any meaningful manner. The left shouldn't attempt to win them over, the left ought to destroy them. Sure they might have "workers" in them, but only the most reactionary section, and the great london rebellion of 2012 showed the left that the "most advanced" section is always the most counter-revolutionary.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Because Left Unity doesn't consider itself as serious a revolutionary movement as the TUSC. It wants to be the UKIP of Labour it said. Sums up their programme.

in the choice between bourgeois politicians, I'd vote Left Unity just as I'd vote Syriza as I said in another thread, to oppose austerity, raised tuition fees, pension cuts and establish a strong platform for leftist discussion. Until a viable revolutionary solution becomes available, I will vote for my personal interests like everyone else does instead of voting white, which goes to the majority party.
I'm certain aspects of Left Unity consider it a revolutionary party (in fact, I know a person from Exeter who stopped organising with Tusc because he considered it reformist and joined Left Unity because he considered it revolutionary). I'm not dismissing what you're saying, however. A lot of leftist organisation have the potential to become a mass workers party (not necessarily revolutionary but shifting the political spectrum left rather than reactionary) but I don't necessarily see much difference between them (which irritates me because I think it dilutes the struggle).


Of course, it is always nice to see institutions like Labour suffer. However it is important to note that such unions also have benefited from imperialism and do not represent the working class in any meaningful manner.
How have unions benefitted from imperialism? Also, they very much do represent the working class in a meaningful manner within the workplaces they represent. An argument could be made that it's not effective revolutionary tactics but it's pretty meaningful to someone under threat from getting the sack to have legal representation on your side with financial backing.


The left shouldn't attempt to win them over, the left ought to destroy them. Sure they might have "workers" in them, but only the most reactionary section,
Some of the best revolutionaries I know are part of the major unions and continue to struggle to form them into effective tools of revolutionary organising. The CWU branch secretary at the Bridgewater postal worker strike is a syndicalist and I know a taxi driver in Unite who's a left communist. Don't be delusional, comrade. Why put workers in "quotation marks"? They most definitely are workers and revolutionaries struggle to emancipate all the proletariat, not just the "elite" section of class concious workers. (I put the "elite" in quotation marks because it's not true, see that's how you use it properly).


and the great london rebellion of 2012 showed the left that the "most advanced" section is always the most counter-revolutionary
First of all, lol 'great london rebellion of 2012'? :rolleyes:
Secondly, how did the trade unions show that they were counter-revolutionary in regards to the riots in London last year?

[A.J.]

They have no one else to endorse though, that's the real problem. I mean can you name one political party in the UK that represents working class and?or revolutionary interests? Respect

I think you're getting ahead youself. GMB haven't disaffiliated from Labour, they've just reduced funding. So technically still by extension, as you put, "endorse" Labour.

[TheEmancipator]

I think you're getting ahead youself. GMB haven't disaffiliated from Labour, they've just reduced funding. So technically still by extension, as you put, "endorse" Labour.

I think reducing their funding was also a symbolic gesture more than a genuine financial hit.