Sharon Graham: Unite's Labour affliation 'getting harder to justify'
The end may be at hand. On July 11th, 800 Unite industrial and regional representatives gathered in Brighton for its policy conference, where they voted on what could be soon regarded as a landmark motion in the history of the modern British-left: to suspend the membership of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and to 're-examine' the union's long-standing funding of the Labour Party. Only a 'handful' of people stood against it.
'There seems to be a bit of shock that the conference voted that way,' Graham told me over the phone.'There were only a handful of people that voted against that in a group [which] represents 1.1 million workers. That should be a red flag for the government.'
The source of Unite and Graham's anger are protracted strikes by waste refuse workers employed by Birmingham City Council – over job reformation and hefty cuts in pay – and the unsatisfactory response from the local Labour-run authority, as well as their national colleagues in Westminster. 'The abdication of responsibility here has been outrageous,' Graham said of Labour's response to the action, which began last summer, and has seen tens of thousands of tons worth of rubbish rot on the streets of England's second city. 'Leaving these workers to wither on the vine is not what I expect from a Labour government.'
Rayner, whose ministerial brief covers local government, has deferred responsibility to end the strikes to Birmingham City Council: 'This is a local dispute, and it is right that the negotiations are led locally,' she told the Commons in April.
But Rayner's justification for absconding soon switched from giving the council autonomy, to ''legal reasons… which is very odd,' claimed Graham, 'because there is no legal reason why [she] couldn't get involved.' The government-appointed commissioners that help manage the council's operations – following it declaring effective-bankruptcy in 2023 – also report directly to Rayner.
Rayner eventually got involved in the dispute. 'She visited Birmingham [in April], and went to speak to the leader of a council [John Cotton]… who's not been in one single negotiation,' Graham said. '[Rayner] went to speak to the strike-breakers – the agency workers who broke the dispute – but didn't have one conversation with the [still-striking] workers. She didn't ask to meet them; didn't ask to sit down somewhere, talk to them; didn't want to really understand what was going on.'
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Does Graham consider this scabbing by Rayner, a former a trade union rep? Graham refused to offer her own view, but projected the angst of her members: 'I think there's something wholly wrong with a decision to ignore workers who are losing up to a quarter of their pay, and essentially picking a side. That's what it felt like for the workers. They were extremely upset about what happened that day.'
Despite Labour and Rayner being tied to unions, the industrial angst the Birmingham strikes represent is a 'microcosm of the whole', according to Graham. Resident doctors voted to stage five days of industrial action in the same week Unite staged its turn against Labour.
'I don't expect to win every conversation with the Labour government,' said Graham, 'but… I expect a Labour government to intervene, and I certainly expect Angela Rayner – who talks about workers' rights – to see what is happening, roll her sleeves up and find out what's going on. She didn't do that. That's not acceptable, and our conference took the decision to suspend her membership.'
Competition will be fierce to secure Unite's vast funding should it divorce from Labour. It would be a particularly costly split for the latter, which receives £1.4m a year in affiliation fees from Graham's union. Labour is in a 'difficult financial position', an internal document notes, and is under a 'recovery plan' in 2025 in order to bring finances to a 'planned but manageable deficit'. The party needs 'at least £4m to adequately resource the 2026 elections'.
Is Graham tempted to channel Unite's heft to the incoming Sultana-Corbyn party, or even an 'eco-populist' Greens led by the emerging Zack Polanski?
'That's all a sideshow,' she said of the speculation. But following any hypothetical disaffiliation with Labour, Graham added, 'I think it's more likely that we would focus on building a strong, independent workers union that was the true, authentic voice for workers, and use that power to move political debate.'
But just because there is no imminent threat to Labour's union funding, there is no room for complacency for Keir Starmer and his party. People who 'flirt' with the disaffiliation question typically assume that it's only ever over 'the internal Labour [Party] squabble of the day,' Graham noted. They may have been true before – but not now.
'Actually,' Graham added, 'this is the first time that this has been done because of workers,' something that Labour has lost perspective on. 'Before the election, I couldn't go on a picket line [without] people saying: 'We need a Labour government'… [Now] I go to those same picket lines to negotiate, and those same people are saying: 'What the hell is going on here?''
Unite's threat to withdraw its funding and affiliation is seemingly not a bluff. 'Let's put it this way,' Graham began, reflecting on the overwhelming decision taken at Unite's meeting last week, 'had that policy conference been a rules conference – because at a rules conference, we determine [our] affiliation to Labour – then those workers would have voted to disaffiliate.' The next Unite rules conference is scheduled for 2027.
That gives Labour time to fix things. And outreach has already begun. 'There have been conversations in relation to the government itself but I don't want to go down that road [publicly],' Graham revealed. 'I don't want to scupper anything… in that regard.' After airing their dirty laundry for all to see last week, Labour and Unite are now seemingly conducting marriage counseling in private.
But existential questions for Labour and Unite remain. 'Now, we are affiliated to Labour, we have a history of being affiliated to Labour, but you can't just blindly affiliate and blindly pay members' money into an organisation that, those members feel, is not speaking for them,' Graham told me. 'The Labour Party… [is] about being the voice for workers; not being embarrassed to be the voice for workers – but [being] very clear so that workers know, 'if you vote Labour, they're on your side'.
'If more and more people are saying, 'Hang on a minute, I'm not sure about that anymore', then it's harder to justify the affiliation.'
[See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
19 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
British man convicted of trying to spy for Russian intelligence service
Howard Phillips, 65, from Harlow, Essex, intended to help two apparent Russian agents called 'Sasha' and 'Dima', including by passing on personal information about former defence secretary Sir Grant Shapps, helping with travel logistics and booking hotels. But 'Dima' and 'Sasha' were in fact undercover British intelligence officers, Winchester Crown Court previously heard. A jury found Phillips guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service under the National Security Act on Tuesday, following a two-week trial at the same court. The jury reached a unanimous verdict after four hours and four minutes of deliberations. Phillips, wearing a dark suit and tie, silently shook his head in the dock as the verdict was given. Prosecutors said Phillips intended to assist Russian agents from the end of 2023 until May last year. Phillips offered to pass on Sir Grant's contact details as well as the location where he kept his private plane in order to 'facilitate the Russians in listening on British defence plans', the trial heard. He was heard telling the men he wanted to work for Russia in exchange for financial independence from the UK. The defendant's ex-wife, Amanda Phillips, told the court during the trial that he 'would dream about being like James Bond', and that he watched films to do with MI5 and MI6 as he was 'infatuated with it'. Mrs Phillips told the court she was aware the defendant had applied for a job at the UK Border Force in October 2023, which prosecutors said was part of his bid to assist Russia's intelligence service. Phillips previously claimed he had contacted the Russian embassy in early 2024 in a bid to track and expose Russian agents to assist Israel. He told jurors he ascertained 'from the onset' that 'Dima' and 'Shasha' were 'definitely not Russian' and were undercover individuals, but that he carried on 'playing a role' around these agents in order to 'test the waters'. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb remanded Phillips in custody and adjourned sentencing to the 'earliest available date' in the autumn. The judge said she wanted a full pre-sentence report on the defendant ahead of sentencing as the conviction was for a 'relatively new' offence. Addressing the jurors, she said: 'Thank you very much for the important work that you have done on this very important case. 'We are trying, as a system, to get to the right answers in these situations.' Officers from the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command arrested Phillips in central London on May 16 last year, after he travelled to the capital for a meeting with the two apparent Russian agents. Detective Chief Superintendent Helen Flanagan said: 'Phillips was unemployed and his primary motivation for wanting to become a spy for the Russian Intelligence Service was financial reward. 'His conviction should act as stark warning to anyone who thinks that carrying out illegal activity on behalf of a foreign state is an attractive or easy way to earn money. 'The reality is that we take this kind of activity extremely seriously. 'Those involved will be identified, investigated and, like Phillips, will face extremely serious consequences when they are convicted. 'This case is also another successful use of the National Security Act to prosecute someone who was attempting to undermine the security of the UK and we will continue to use these powers available to us to help keep the public safe.' Bethan David, head of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter terrorism division, said: 'This conviction sends a clear message to anyone considering spying for or assisting Russia. 'Howard Phillips clearly outlined the services he was willing to provide for a hostile state. From gaining employment within the civil service and applying for security clearance, to providing the personal details of the Secretary of State for Defence – Phillips was brazen in his pursuit for financial gain and unbothered about the potential detriment to his own country. 'It is a criminal offence to assist a foreign intelligence service, regardless of your motive or whether or not you succeed. 'We will always seek to prosecute anyone who poses a threat to the UK.'
Rhyl Journal
19 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Minister insists fuel supplies not under threat despite oil refinery closure
State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – collapsed into administration last month, putting hundreds of jobs at risk. Michael Shanks pledged to support the workers who are facing redundancy, but said there is little action the Government can take to improve the statutory redundancy offer. Speaking in the Commons, he said: 'We have worked urgently to ensure the safety of the refinery site, the security of fuel supplies and to protect workers. 'This has also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site. 'Following a thorough process, the official receiver has rigorously assessed all the bids received and concluded that sale of the business as a whole is not a credible option.' He added: 'A package has been offered to all those directly employed at the refinery, which guarantees their jobs and pay over the coming months. 'And alongside the usual support that is offered to workforces in insolvency situations, the Government will also immediately fund a comprehensive training guarantee for those refinery workers to ensure they have the skills needed and the support to find jobs, for example, in the growing clean energy workforce.' The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland. Prax Group is led by majority owner and chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, who bought the Lindsey oil refinery from French firm Total in 2021. Shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie, who tabled the urgent question, claimed 625 jobs are at risk as he pressed the minister for an update on its investigation into the collapse of the company. He also asked: 'What, if any, assessment has been made into the UK's resilience given the steep reduction in our refining capacity over the past six months? 'What, if any, assessment has been made on the increased reliance on imports that will be necessary as a result of the reduction in British refining capacity?' Mr Shanks said fuel supplies had 'adjusted' in the past few weeks, adding: 'Our assessment suggests there isn't an immediate risk to fuel supplies locally or in the wider area, but we'll continue to monitor that.' On the investigation, he said: 'There is not much I can update the House on at the moment, because the insolvency service is carrying out that investigation.' Conservative MP Martin Vickers, whose Brigg and Immingham constituency includes the oil refinery, said he wanted to see 'the maximum support given to those workers'. Mr Shanks replied: 'We have looked and pushed and pushed to see if there is more action Government can take to change or to give any additional payments. 'It's not possible for Government to do that, not least because the insolvency service has to follow very specific rules in terms of creditors and what their parameters are to operate in the event of an insolvency. 'But I do think the owners of this company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.'
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Readers deeply divided on lowering the voting age to 16 – from ‘only fair' to ‘blatant gerrymandering'
The government's decision to lower the voting age to 16 has sparked intense debate among Independent readers, with opinions sharply divided over whether the move strengthens democracy or serves party politics. A poll of readers found that 38 per cent believe it's fair for 16-year-olds to vote, while 62 per cent said they are too young to head to the polls. Critics were quick to dismiss the reform as politically motivated, arguing that most teenagers lack the life experience or political understanding needed to make informed decisions. 'Why not let 13-year-olds vote next?' one reader scoffed, describing the move as 'blatant gerrymandering' by Labour to win over idealistic young voters. Supporters, however, hailed the change as long overdue. Many pointed out that 16-year-olds in the UK can already marry, work, pay taxes and even join the armed forces – so it's only fair they have a say in how the country is run. 'They're more mature than most adults I know,' said one commenter, while others noted that political education in schools has left many young people well-informed and engaged. Some readers proposed a middle ground – such as lowering the age to 17 or linking voting rights to leaving full-time education. Here's what you had to say: If they can marry and work, they should vote Of course they should. If they don't get the vote, they should pay no tax or National Insurance, be banned from joining the military, become a NEET or do anything the government tells them to do at that age. You can get married at 16, have sex at 16, ride a moped at 16, drive a car at 17 (16 for some severely disabled people), and yet Tories do not wish them to have a say in their futures. LadyCrumpsall Should 16-year-olds be trusted with the vote – or is it a step too far? Share your views in the comments below. So much nonsense about how sixteen-year-olds don't have the experience, wisdom, knowledge, etc., etc., etc., to have the vote. Having been politically active for most of my life, the lesson of decades of canvassing is that the majority of adults don't really have the faintest idea what they're voting for, or why. You'd be amazed, for instance, at the number of people who say that they're going to vote for X Party because they think that they'll be the election winners – as if they're backing a horse race. bottlebank 16-year-olds can be more mature than adults Many 16-year-olds I know are more mature than many adults; not all, I appreciate that, but to say they aren't mature enough is ludicrous. If they're allowed to get married, then they're old enough to vote. I welcome this move – it'll modernise the voting system and bring in more points of view. The voting population will be getting older and older, and we'll end up with a load of pensioners making decisions based on 'what's good for me' rather than what's good for the up-and-coming generations. deadduck They've studied politics – they're clued up At the age of 16, students have studied politics as part of community studies. I am old so don't talk to many teenagers, but those that I have spoken to – serving staff in cafés, relatives, etc. – are all pretty clued up and invested in what is their future. They can join the forces at 16, get married at 16 – surely if they are mature enough to do that, they are mature enough to vote? DafB Zero life skills A very small minority are politically aware, most aren't. They have zero life skills, experience of bills, home or car ownership etc. Some will argue they are old enough to join the forces. Yes, where you are told what to do by others. It is clearly an idea of Labour, backed up by the Liberals and Greens, to gain a potential two million more votes – all three being poor or struggling in the polls. Sooperhooper Most kids don't care – but neither do adults I don't think most kids today give a darn about politics or are educated well enough to know what's at stake. I'd even go so far as to say that many adults aren't educated well enough to understand the same things. We're at a critical junction in world history and politics. We must make wise choices and hope those who make the laws are of good heart and want to represent their actual constituents. At the moment, and with a somewhat cynical eye, it doesn't look that way. AwareReader Wait until they've left school My thoughts are they could have the voting age dropped to 17 years after they have left school and found out what the world of work is all about. Also, in the final year at secondary school they have education in politics and the voting system. Billydes Open to influence In my experience, teenagers have little in the way of original thought when it comes to politics. Lacking experience, they're still malleable and open to influence, and it would be easy to see how their thinking could be influenced by others who have a darker agenda. RickC Five reasons for Yes 16-year-olds should vote. Why? Because: It should encourage an interest in politics and democracy. It might stop some claiming, "What's the point – no-one listens to us..." It seemingly only has a marginal effect on outcomes in any case. It'll focus politicians on our future – our yoof. Although our youngsters are often a tad idealistic – i.e. leftish – that's fair enough, as it should help counter the barmy rightie oldies. :-) DevsAd They live with the consequences Young people have the most to vote for, as they are voting for their future. They are the ones who will have to live through the impact of their vote, which will mostly impact (though not entirely) those who are of working age. Legally, people aged 16 can work, pay taxes, join the military, have children, etc. – then it is only right that they get a say in the running of the country. Those complaining are all moaning about "woke leftie kids voting", but I can assure you they won't be voting Labour! SoMrHarris E lectoral gerrymandering If 16, why not 15? If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? Where is the cut-off? My 7-year-old pays taxes in the form of VAT every time she uses her pocket money to buy something. Should she be allowed to vote? Labour simply has no convincing logical argument in favour of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, especially given that we as a society currently think they are too immature to buy fireworks, get tattoos, open a bank account, gamble, pawn something in a pawn shop, and view pornography. Yet we are supposed to buy into the notion that they should be allowed to help choose the next government "because they can pay taxes". It is blatant and desperate electoral gerrymandering of the most partisan kind, from a man who promised to "put country before party". Labour appears to have belatedly bought into the idea that there is an emerging crisis of legitimacy in politics that has been brewing for decades. Their publicly-stated analysis of the cause of this crisis is frankly laughable. Do they seriously believe that this crisis can be fixed by managerial tinkering with the electoral process? That people think politicians are duplicitous troughers only because 16 and 17-year-olds are not more engaged with politics? It is nonsense. The issue is that people see politicians continually lying, gaslighting, claiming they will do one thing while literally doing the exact opposite, and generally serving their own agenda rather than that of voters, who they treat with barely disguised contempt. Will giving 16-year-olds the vote solve that? Of course not. It will make it worse. sj99 I trust my teenage son more than some voters My son was 17 this week. He is sane, smart, sober, politically aware and I would back his judgement in a polling booth ahead of any Reform UK voter of any age. SteveHill Why not? Why not? They are at least as intelligent and mature as the pensioner gammons who voted for Brexit. I suggest that as well as lowering the voting age, we should insist on a mental competence test for people over seventy – just like you need to renew your driving licence beyond that age – and I speak as a seventy-two-year-old.
