To say that Labour's handling of the FBU dispute has been inept, would be too kind. Even on their own terms, the ministry of all the talents has fluffed it. A week after the strike began, ministers were still spinning - not just against the union - but against themselves. The Deputy Prime Minister explained that firefighters were the salt of the earth, and eminently deserved a moderate rise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that Prudence was against any above-inflation rise. Other ministers
explained that they were busy consulting Britain's political heavyweights -
the Sun and the Daily Mail - for advice. Perhaps they should send the police or army to break through picket lines and capture the red fire engines? Or how about banning all strikes in essential services?
The public seemed to take a cue from the mixed messages of the Government:
with the Financial Times claiming public hostility to the firefighters, and a Guardian poll showing precisely the opposite result. Who to believe?
Judging by the noise from honking cars in Sunderland, Sheffield and London,
I think the Guardian counted this one right.
As the pressure built up to avert a second wave of eight-day strikes,
fire-fighters and employers agreed to meet through the night. The result?
This morning, the radio reported that both sides had agreed a last minute
deal -- then, with the deal signed, it was scuppered by John Prescott. His
"explanation" was that his civil servants needed to read the details, and no
they couldn't work any hours except nine to five. Maybe Prescott needed his beauty sleep. A Government that proclaimed its refusal to take sides in
this dispute - was intervening hard - against both union and employers.
The usual assemblages of half-truths have been set in motion against the
firefighters. We can't allow any workers to get forty per cent a year. But
the FBU hasn't put in a claim like this for twenty five years. No-one could sneer
down their noses at the Government's initial 11% offer. But how can
ministers with six-figures salaries, perks, and a 40% per cent rise of their
own, lecture workers on pay restraint?
For what it's worth, I think the Government will settle, but not for the
reason given in the papers, namely that the army wants its hands free to
fight a war in Iraq. A further background factor also limits the
government's room to manoeuvre.
Labour's coffers are currently at their emptiest. Part of the reason is to
do with the declining willingness of the unions to fund a party that is too
often hostile to their interests. The moderates among union leaders,
represented in the GMB and TGWU, have already reduced planned donations. The more radical union leaders, including those at the heads of the FBU, RMT, PCS and so on, are in a different position. At each of these unions' conferences, the majority would like to see funding opened up, so that individuals or parties can be supported that identify with the union's
constitution. Some Labour candidates would be funded, where they supported
the unions - but non-Labour candidates could also be backed.
The soon-to-be-retiring leader of the TUC John Monks hopes that the call for
the democratisation of the union poltiical funds can be used to firm up the
union right - hence the invitation to Chales Kennedy to address the TUC
conference. But democratisation could also point to the left, as supporters
of the Socialist Alliance hope.
Tony Blair may remember that the FBU was the very first union to vote to
democratise its political fund. This decision was taken in 2001, but was
partially-reversed at the conference this year. Delegates pulled back,
after speeches from their leaders. Then was not the time, with a national
dispute looming. Yet the FBU remains at the front of a group of unions, all
considering the value of donating to Labour.
While some sections of the New Labour Cabinet are clearly itching for the chance to out-gun the Mail, others are trapped by the lingering memory of
previous crises on the British left.
One hundred and twenty years ago, every union of any size gave financial and
political backing to the Liberal Party, before finding that this party was
more interested in the values of a small number of go-getting employers than
they were in the unions. Tensions arose each time there was a strike -
between (Liberal) employers and (Liberal) trade unionists. In 1901, the
judges changed the law to increase trade union legal liability, the infamous
Taff Vale ruling. The unions expected the Liberal Party to reverse the
decision. In the absence of Liberal support, they were forced to turn left
instead, establishing a Labour Representation Committee - today's Labour
Party.
History never repeats itself precisely. Taff Vale came from the law lords,
nor Parliament. It arrived at the end of a series of union defeats, while
today's strike is at an upward curve of the movement.
But is it so odd to draw these parallels? Such options as the Government's power to change the law - or its ability to use police and troops to take control of the fire engines - have always carried risks greater than the peaceful settling of the dispute. In the battle with the FBU, the momentum has shifted between union and Government and back. Tony Blair always instinctively favours the most right-wing approach. Yet his advisers will be warning him, that if he plays his hand too strongly, then a victory secured by such means could prove even more dangerous than defeat.
