Speaking as a PCS member who voted against the proposal, I have two questions:

Firstly, if you get a situation where more than one candidate in the same constituency claims that they are opposed to the cuts (and bear in mind that any candidate can claim that they are), which one will PCS support?

Similarly, if the union (either on its own or as part of a wider grouping) decide to field a candidate, where will the funding come from?

Don’t get me wrong; I am proud that my union has as little to do with the treacherous lickspittles of the Labour Party as possible (other unions please copy), and I tend to support the groups which have controlled the union for the last decade or so, but I can’t help thinking that this isn’t a valid use of our time and resources, and may even turn some members back towards the Blairite clique who ran the union in the 90s, or even away from the union altogether.

With a potential Labour Government, after the next election, that appears to misunderstand the economic multiplier effect that the public sector can have it is essential that the PCS direct their support towards candidates who are more enlightened.
Working in a Government Department where the bulk of the spend employs local rural contractors I clearly see the damaging impact of spending cuts.
As well as this exemplary way forward the PCS must continue to fight the attacks on pay and pensions. The freezing of public sector pay and pensions costing more for less all because the private sector put us in debt means that a future government must be committed to repairing the damage. Unfortunately Miliband is not giving the right message. I doubt he will be supported by PCS unless he changes his tune.

@1. The Judge

I imagine it would work just like it does now, with candidates visiting branches to have a chat with branch members and ask for support, and the branch vote on it.

You may even vote to support two candidates.

Since it’s likely to involve local election candidates who don’t have to pay deposits, then they’ll be after leaflet costs and about 7000 double sided nice A5 B&W leaflets costs less than £100, and they’ll likely be talking to more than one union.

However as it opens up an alternative to giving money to Labour and thus funding non-jobs for peoples family members at HQ, or otherwise contributing towards the gravy train, expect labour to get even more anti union because this might be a step to the creation of a left wing party.

The threat of this happening might just put a leftward pressure on the Labour Party. Rather like the presence of UKIP puts a rightward pressure on the Conservative Party.

I’d quote the old union staple, united we stand, divided we fall, but dividing the left helped to deliver a left leaning party to power in 2010 I guess.

Oh wait…

There isn’t a left wing political party to be divided though. The Lib Dems gained a lot of support pretending to be left wing, talking about things like a fairer tax system, democratic reform, really not mentioning that there’s a chapter about privatising the NHS in the Orange book.

The Labour party don’t even pretend to be left wing. They’ve boasted about the UK having the harshest anti union laws in Europe. When did they last support any strike, whatever the reason?

They are slightly to the left of the Tories, but they’ve never seen a public service they didn’t want to privatise, outsource, use as a vehicle for transferring taxpayer money to the financial services industry through PFI, or add a layer of management or regulator too stuffed with political appointees.

The Labour party believes in the supremacy of markets, and neo liberalism, but is prepared to be massively authoritarian. They introduced control orders to silence Gadaffi opponents living in the UK, and took part in kidnapping people to deliver to him. They’ve shut down an SFO enquiry into bribery and corruption to avoid embarassing the Tories and one of the worlds most brutal dictatorships.

While Labour are now talking about nationalising the railways, possibly, and maybe putting it in the manifesto as a possible aim, it was in the 1997 manifesto and for 13 years billions of taxpayer money went on making sure train operating companies could keep paying dividends.

People who feel the Labour party is left wing are holding onto the past. They need people to deliver leaflets and tribally stick with them, ignoring things like the Iraq war, or expenses, or Lordships for loans, but if they had a choice between dropping party membership by another 100,000 and getting another Lord Sainsbury onboard, they’d pick a rich donor every time.

The PCS have already deaffiliated with the Labour party, so if they want to put money into campaigning against cuts, or campaigning for democratic reform in the UK, or anything else, then it doesn’t affect the Labour party as it isn’t money that could be used to create a few more HQ non-jobs or hold some dinner parties for lobbyists and donors, and they’ll be campaigning on issues the Labour party don’t care about anyway.

Brilliant comment Ben2.

I feel Ben2 has got it about right.

@6 Ben2

True, but I think the Blairite/Neo-liberal wing of the Labour Party have been discredited and are now on the retreat, and the LP is starting to make some cautious baby steps back towards the centre left. Although obviously there’s a long way to go after the ideological gutting performed by Blair and his gang of cuckoos in the nest.

Totally agree with the last four comments except that I doubt if the Labour Party can reverse what Blair and New Lab did, burnt bridges springs to mind.
The left, and those unions who identify themselves as left, need to create a new socialist party and hold up the Blair years as a warning from history. And I doubt if it would take a new party that long to establish itself considering the current state of capitalism.

So does this mean that the PCS will back Green candidates over Labour candidates, seeing as we, uh, vote against the cuts, and our party leadership are clearly against the cuts, unlike Miliband and Balls?

If unions really want to be heard by Labour, then not only are more going to have to become independent, but some should support parties with true progressive politics.

Instead, McCluskey and others just shout from the sidelines but don’t lead by example http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/17/len-mccluskey-attacks-ed-miliband_n_1209709.html

Ben2

Thing is – Labour are left. They may not be left enough, but they are left. Even under Blair they were left.

We are talking about a party who in 13 years in government rebuilt an NHS, built new schools across the country and bought in programmes that massively improved education in the poorest parts of the UK, created and consistently raised a national minimum wage, created a right to trade union recognition, created thousands of trade union training reps, banned discrimination against homosexuals, banned discriminition against the disabled, banned discrimination against racial and religious minorities, created a community family support programme the likes of which we’d never had before (Sure Start), quadroupled international aid, cancelled its third world debt, and plenty more besides.

If we want stuff like that – we need Labour in government. What we thus need is pressure on Labour from within and without to improve itself and challenge better a weak consensus in regards to corporate practice and market delivery.

Because to put it bluntly – turning their back on that challenge means the PCS is doing everything in its power to deliver another right ing government in 2015, and doing nothing in its power to generate a better left wing alternative.

Dan Key

The problem holding that up is best illustrated by Heathrow or nuclear power. The Greens would not be very interested in the number of jobs created or protected by a third runway or a new reactor.

Unions tend to be.

Not insurmountable – but unions form partnerships on more than one policy agenda. Well, smart ones do. Maybe not the PCS.

margin4error

Greens would, however, be interested in the hundreds of thousands of potential jobs available through a massive green new deal, as opposed to the limited number of jobs needed for new nuclear build.

Greens would also be far more interested in the number of potential jobs available through an expanded national passenger and freight rail network, as opposed to the limited number of jobs created through one runway at an airport.

I’d imagine the unions would be too.

m4e @12:

“Even under Blair they were left.”

Only if you consider how far to the right the so-called ‘centre-ground’ of politics has moved in the last thirty years.

“We are talking about a party who in 13 years in government rebuilt an NHS…”

Via PFI, thus saddling health services with crippling debt for two generations. And exponentially increasing the tiers of piddling, unproductive ‘management’ employed.

“…built new schools across the country…”

See under ‘NHS’.

“…created and consistently raised a national minimum wage…”

Whilst never letting it be set at a level anyone could actually live on, because that would have upset ‘the business community’.

“…created a right to trade union recognition…”

Whilst not repealing a single line of the anti-union legislation of Thatcher/Major, which means that unions have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. And, of course, failing to support the unions in any dispute for fear of screeching from the Daily Heil.

“…banned discrimination against homosexuals…”

Except for allowing them to marry.

“…the PCS is doing everything in its power to deliver another right ing [sic] government in 2015″

Any result under the current system will deliver a ‘right wing government’. The Westminster arse has three cheeks.

It’s worth remembering that the Labour party went to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the ban on homosexuals in the military, spending large amounts of taxpayer money to fight against equal rights for homosexuals, and after they were defeated and almost no one gave a toss about gays in the military, then they changed their policy towards gays.

That tends to get left out.

Trade unions often find it, shall we say, difficult to get on with each other.

But the PCS has decided today that it is going to fund its own parliamentary candidates, Meanwhile, Unite well on the way to signing up five thousand new Labour Party members under its own direction, with, to the horror of the likes of Philip Collins, the full co-operation of the Leadership. Yes, it would now require that few people in order to exercise that increased influence that Unite wants.

It should be made clear that the PCS will stand someone against any Labour candidate not endorsed by Unite, which in turn will be prioritising the deselection of members of Progress, including those who have purportedly left it following its impending expulsion but who have failed to manifest a sufficient break with its ideology and agenda.

Absolutely vital, however, is to remember that there is no vacancy for yet another Marxist or merely Leftist party in this country. There has never been any shortage of those, only of any constituency for them.

Whereas any examination of the Mail and Telegraph newspapers confirms that the Coalition’s savage cuts in services and in spending power, the road to yet further economic ruin, are no more popular with Conservative supporters, Middle England, or what have you, then they are with anyone else.

At the recent local elections, Labour made significant inroads into the countryside beyond those parts where it always does well, and both Coalition parties lost to anyone else available in those corners of the Kingdom with little or no Labour organisation due to little or no history of voting Labour.

The Coalition of Resistance to them can and must include hitherto Conservative supporters, Middle England, the Mail and Telegraph newspapers, and what have you. As well as the countryside beyond those parts where Labour always does well. And as well as those corners of the Kingdom with little or no Labour organisation due to little or no history of voting Labour.

Matt

Never under-estimate that unions will always prioritise protecting 1 existing job over creating 100 new ones. Because the 1 existing job is a member, and te 100 new ones are not members.

It is a sad reflection of how institutions work that such inertia is promoted – but unions are not alone in that. And yes, some of those things might indeed attract some support from unions. But if votes for greens keep labour candidates out and get tory candidates (be they blue or yellow) elected – how would that serve to benefit the environment or the unions?

Hence my “united we stand, divided we fall” comment. I’d actually love to see the Greens and Labour build on their co-operation in the GLA and create something of a left-alliance. But I suspect that is wishful thinking on my part.

The Judge

Love the worthless quibbling. Really helpful. Thanks.

Much better to take a moral high ground and pretend ciriticism is the same as moral purity than accept that the world is imperfect and achievement means getting hands dirty…

David – well said.