Letter: Why Labour will always need the unions; why it must let them go
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: John Torode shows a surprising lack of understanding of the way in which trade unions work when he calls them undemocratic ('Better off without a bankroll', 10 June).
Our trade unions are no more undemocratic than the British state. Unions, like most parliamentary democracies, are 'responsible democracies': we, the electors, do not take decisions, we elect people to take them and throw them out later if we are unhappy. Those we elect appoint professionals to advise, implement and in some instances to take decisons under delegated powers.
No government or parliament has ever asked me, or any other citizen, personally and directly, to decide about, for example, our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, or the way our representative should vote on the UN Security Council. The Government's 'block vote' is assumed, reasonably, to be an adequate representation of all our interests and views.
Trade union democracy is exactly similar. I agree that it could be improved, perhaps by special levy-payers' conferences to control political levy expenditure, by election of political committees, by properly audited Labour Party affiliation numbers and by improved consultation.
Mr Torode - and, more important, John Smith - ought to be aware that the Labour Party is not and never has been a political party in the normal sense of a group of like-minded folk with electoral ambitions. It is the political wing of a broad, democratic socialist movement, combining the interests of workers, co-operative members, intellectuals - including individuals who combine these roles.
Of course, it needs some modernisation and improvements in democracy and efficiency. It needs to expand the involvement of those outside its original constituencies - the burgeoning lower middle class who are not trade union members, the unemployed, consumers, environmentalists, should be encouraged to join the federal structure of the movement. But if that federal structure, and the key influence of the trade unions, is abandoned, the party will lose its raison d'etre.
If Mr Smith has his way and Mr Torode's 'unthinkable' occurs, it will not be many years before people in unions start to say they are under-represented in Parliament. They will suggest forming a new political party. I, after 30 years in the Labour Party, and many others like me, would be quick to join.
Yours faithfully,
PETER GRESHAM
London, W14
The writer was an official of the TUC organisation department from 1965-75.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments