(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Charlie Whelan and Unite: less to it than it seems

Out-of-control trade unions are no longer the problem in modern Britain; out-of-control capitalists are

Charlie Whelan

The Tories have mounted a personal attack on Charlie Whelan, the political director of Unite. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

The first thing to be said when confronted with comically sinister photos of Charlie Whelan in all the newspapers is that out-of-control trade unions are no longer the problem in modern Britain; out-of-control capitalists are the problem.

Everyone knows this, but some people are trying hard to make us all forget it as election day draws closer. Why not, if we're daft enough to fall for it? It's a free country, more or less.

Eric Pickles, struggling to regain the political initiative as Conservative chairman, is one such. He has unleashed Michael Gove to attack unbridled union power – ho ho – though Ann Treneman neatly skewers this idea in today's Times: Gove is "more meerkat than rottweiler", she notes.

Does that mean that Charlie's return to prominence from disgrace and exile is a good idea – for Gordon Brown, for the government, for the country or even for Unite, the union for which he works so tirelessly? Probably not. Whelan is a resourceful but divisive figure with a lot of toxic history and a weakness for self-promotion.

Does that mean that Unite's political director is helping to organise the strike of BA cabin crew that threatens to protect the environment by wrecking some Easter holiday plans? Of course not.

Is he in favour of the strike? I very much doubt it. He's the political organiser, not the industrial one. Like Gordon Brown and Andrew Adonis ("more Andrew than Adonis", as the old joke goes) Charlie is probably pulling his hair out. He's got lots to pull.

In the photo favoured by Fleet Street this week he is seen wearing a herring bone overcoat and a flat cap with horn-rimmed glasses: Eric Morecambe meets Eric Honecker, the former East German communist leader. Comrade Charlie used to be in the CP too, but he's personally very jolly, more a foul-mouthed version of Eric Morecambe.

Today the papers are also reporting that the US Teamsters, led by James son-of-Jimmy Hoffa (who ended up in a Mafia cement mixer), are preparing to help their British comrades.

That should give BA's militant management pause for thought as they push dangerously hard for a confrontation neither side can afford. Simon Jenkins writes a very enjoyable column about BA as a feather-bedded but powerful lobby in today's paper. According to Simon I must be the only hack never to have got an upgrade: not true, I suspect.

You can't say too often that unions struggle to do their best to protect their members' interests: that usually means avoiding strike action, but a ballot result is a result.

They do so with their hands tied behind their backs these days. When they were untied they abused their power until Margaret Thatcher took them on after 1979.

Now it is the investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, big firms of accountants, venture capitalists and their associates, their hands untied by Thatcher – and certainly not retied by New Labour – who are abusing theirs.

In their heyday the unions did a lot of shortsighted harm to the economy, propping up all sorts of inefficiencies and discouraging investment. But it is hard to think of a strike which did more damage than the banking crisis has done, here and elsewhere.

That hasn't stopped the Tories trying to resurrect the 1978-79 "winter of discontent" theme of old Labour militancy, even the Militant Tendency. Gove's crocodile tears in praise of moderate Blairism is self-serving guff.

Gove – who once joined a picket line at his old paper the Aberdeen Press and Journal – should know better and probably does.

The truth is that Unite isn't leftwing; it's a big ramshackle mega-union, some of whose members are leftwing, some of whom are Daily Mail readers, including plenty in the BA cabin staff. It's so big because unions have been forced to merge – a sign of weakness, not strength.

It even has two general secretaries, Tony Woodley, who is said to favour Andy Burnham (it's the Everton FC connection) for Labour leader, and Derek Simpson who supports Ed Miliband, not Ed Balls – contrary to what you read all over the place (because Balls hacks off a lot of Unite officials, as he does others).

So, no plot, just the usual shambles. "This is just score-settling for Michael Ashcroft," says one Labour apparatchik of my acquaintance. "The idea of comparing a trade union which does good for a lot of people with a dodgy tax exile is shocking," he adds. A good point, I think.

Yes, we all know that unions such as Unite provide two-thirds of Labour's much-depleted funds. Why? Because the alternative, rich donors, were frightened off by a series of media-driven "scandals", backed by questionable police investigations that came to nothing.

Yet we know less than we think about Conservative finances and I observe in passing that the US supreme court has just given the green light to anonymous corporate donations to politics – as serious a development as I can recall on that front.

Read Tristram Hunt's witty take on the "Tea Party" – tax dodgers and demagogues today, as they were in Boston in 1773, he says – for a good angle.

One last thing. The papers are making a big deal out of allegations that the likes of Whelan and Tom Watson MP are stitching up selections for Unite candidates, all lefties naturally, except they're not – and they're not all lefties either.

In the case of James Purnell, who was himself eased into the Stalybridge seat as a Blair protege in 2001 (the seat's former MP got a peerage), he has complained that his own protege, local councillor Johnny Reynolds, has been left off the shortlist.

Well, I suppose that when a chap with considerable talent and potential resigns from the cabinet, stabs his leader in the chest and then quits parliament – contrary to earlier pledges – he doesn't have a lot of leverage left.

Even his mates are cross with him, though Peter Mandelson, victim of past Blair-Brown feuds, has come out in support.

For what it's worth Unite's political committee voted unanimously to back ex-MEP Glyn Ford, famous for red spectacle frames before they were fashionable, for the nomination. What did Labour's selection panel in London do? Left him off the shortlist in favour of regional locals.

It was an understandable reaction after high-flyer Purnell was parachuted in – and tunnelled out so quickly. But hardly deference to the Unite paymasters. And the wannabe denounced as a dangerous Unite apparatchik on the shortlist, Peter Wheeler, is apparently on t the union's right wing – more Blair than Whelan.

I've never met him, but apparently he still lives in a council house up the road in Salford. If he gets the nomination and wins the seat it will be good to have another MP who lives in a council house. Not too many of them these days. I'm told some even have flats in London.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • GrubHater GrubHater

    17 Mar 2010, 11:31AM

    Are the swing voters really interested in this? I don't preceive the same visceral antipathy towards TUs now that there was in the 70s and 80s. "They're a bit toothless now" seems to be a concensus opinion, even among members.

    I wonder if the Tories are barking up the wrong tree on this one. (No dangerous dog reference intended,, but your attempt at rational discourse will be savaged here I have no doubt)

    Depressing news about the US Supreme court, I'd rather have remained in ignorance about that.

  • eddiep eddiep

    17 Mar 2010, 11:39AM

    Well, Mr White. Unusually for you, this is a complacent superficial piece. The reference to out of control capitalists is just a diversion. The unions haven't caused much trouble recently because they have received everything they wanted. You ignore/dismiss the political influence of the unions far too easily. Yes, the conservatives over-dramatise the situation but I am afraid you have less credibility on this issue.

  • Garkpit Garkpit

    17 Mar 2010, 1:27PM

    rich donors, were frightened off by a series of media-driven "scandals", backed by questionable police investigations that came to nothing.

    Oh come on, Michael, don't get all Toynbee on me now. No charges were brought, but a 15-month investigation, arrests of senior government officers, independent IT investigation of Downing Street computers and the PM interviewed three times in No. 10...? Nothing?

  • cynosarge cynosarge

    17 Mar 2010, 1:34PM

    Charlie Whelan and Unite: less to it than it seems

    Really? The Unite union funds 111 Labour MPs. This makes them the third largest group in Parliament, with almost twice the numbers of the LibDem party. Unite funds 23% of Labour's operations (Ashcroft funds about 1% of the Tory operations)

    Even if your assertion was true, which I doubt, Unite still clearly has excessive influence, even taking into account its membership. Even if evey one of Unite's two million members was a Labour party supporter (which I hope even you would agree is unrealistic) infuencing 32% of Labour MPs and controlling 23% of party funds appears excessive for 4% of the voting population.

  • Sweeting Sweeting

    17 Mar 2010, 2:02PM

    He has unleashed Michael Gove to attack unbridled union power ? ho ho ? though Ann Treneman neatly skewers this idea in today's Times: Gove is "more meerkat than rottweiler", she notes.

    Explain how a juvenile ad hominem attack counts as a neat skewering of an idea.

  • mazza1230 mazza1230

    17 Mar 2010, 2:29PM

    Michael, The workings of Government's Union "Modernisation Fund" deserves to be widely publicised at every opportunity:

    For example the £4million supplied to Unite by us Taxpayers allows Unite to ask its members for £4million less in dues than they would otherwise have to.

    But the members can then donate this windfall to Unites strictly ring-fenced "Political fund". This in turn can then be donated to the Labour Party.

    Clever eh! I wonder how many of us Taxpayers knew we were indirectly helping to fund the Labour Party ?

  • NeitherLeftNorRight NeitherLeftNorRight

    17 Mar 2010, 2:29PM

    So Unite is bankrolling labour which in turn channels all the public sector job advertisements to the Guardian, helping it to stay afloat despite the Guardian ceo making value destroying acquisitions like that of Emap or signing off on value destroying acquisition like that of HBoS by Lloyds where she sits (or now perhaps, sat) on the board.

    Mr White, has Whelan told you in the lobby what to write?

    Perhaps you can ask Whelan about that ballot box break-in in labour hq ('Millbank' for the likes of you).

    Have a happy UniteGate!

  • NeitherLeftNorRight NeitherLeftNorRight

    17 Mar 2010, 2:36PM

    Meanwhile, a good background article about postal voting (in which constituencies, the number of pastal votes expressed as % of the difference between nr1 and nr 2, etc) would be very much appreciated.

    Or are The Guardian's labour and unite paymasters asking you not to write about postal votes (yes, I know there was a brief article on postal votes recently when labour got a polite kicking from the electoral commission)

    Happy Unite(d) postal voting - no wonder the Royal Mail employees got that payrise! If the postal votes had to be flown next week to that secretive postal voting counting company in Belfast, Whelan would have called off the BA strike already. Come to think of it, the BA strike will be called off because UniteGate is making the wrong sort of headlines. Guess 6 May it is then.

  • northman northman

    17 Mar 2010, 2:45PM

    NeitherLeftNorRight

    adding Gate to the end of a word to imply some sort of scandal is a bit rubbish (especially as this is no scandal). However since all this fuss has been thrown up becasue of the BA strike perhaps you should look at GATE Gourmet (like what I did there eh?) which shows that BA management have form as bad employers....

  • sloggers sloggers

    17 Mar 2010, 3:55PM

    NeitherLeftNorRight

    UniteGate? Sorry it just doesn't sound more sinister because you add "Gate" to it. I think the finding that the Labour Party, founded by unions, has union funding hardly warrants a -Gate suffix. Unless you want to go for ItsBleedingObviousGate.

    Does this mean the other things that the terrifyingly sinister revelation that Sarah Brown has got an honorary degree from the University of Wolverhampton should be DoctorofLettersGate? Or should it be UniversityofWolverhamptonGate?

  • NeitherLeftNorRight NeitherLeftNorRight

    17 Mar 2010, 4:02PM

    sincerest apologies to everyone for being a nuisance again, but there seems to be a new development in UniteGate:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23816132-senior-no-10-official-paid-entirely-by-unite-trade-union.do

    @sloggers, northman and Mr White
    I do understand that you're all inclined to give labour and Brown the benefit of the doubt, but there are instances when issues are beyond doubt.

  • Boslow Boslow

    17 Mar 2010, 4:29PM

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    You can not take people's money and think you are independent from them. Using union money to fight for change, and to oppose a Tory government is fine. But when you are in government you can not expect to act in the interest of the nation if you are being financed by, what is in reality, a minority group.

    Just another level by which Brown and Co are stumbling.

    The Guardian needs to try harder. They are not convincing even their own readers now. Time to jump ship like the Sun?

  • MikeWhitereplies MikeWhitereplies

    17 Mar 2010, 4:46PM

    Staff Staff

    chaps, chaps, the unions bankroll Labour because they fear - correctly - that a Tory victory will harm many of their members. The fatcats bankroll the Tories for the same reason, but drive a MUCH harder bargain.

    It's not a morality play, but to claim that the unions are a major threat to the stability of the country in 2010 is absurd, for reasons I posted above. You mustn't believe what you read in the papers, the people who write it at the behest of the tax exiles often don't.

  • RussJ RussJ

    17 Mar 2010, 4:53PM

    Well Mr White. This taxpayer does object to his money being given by the Labour government to Unite as a modernisation grant and then for Unite to give it to the Labour PARTY!

    I pay tax to enable my government to improve life for the British people not to keep themselves in cushy high paid jobs with massive redundancy payouts even after commiting fraud, and overgenerous pensions.

    More and more corruption from this rotten Labour party. I hope every Labour MP gets thrown out along with MP's from other parties who have been stealing from us.

  • sloggers sloggers

    17 Mar 2010, 5:04PM

    NeitherLeftNorRight.

    I wouldn't argue with your comment. When the alternative is David Cameron, George Osborne and Mr Ashcroft, I am prepared to give Gordo the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't mean I like him, but, perhaps a bit like Unite, I think he's the lesser of two evils.

    Since you are Neither Left Nor Right perhaps you could also give us your perspective on AshcroftGate?

  • NeitherLeftNorRight NeitherLeftNorRight

    17 Mar 2010, 7:55PM

    apologies re last poster, but all posts have now disappeared so can't kick off here with your name,

    but re Ashcroft

    I don't know what the rules are, but if donations illegal the money should be paid back, but I guess it's all been legal given labour accepting the money from Paul, Mittal and Cohen.

    Ashcroft obviously wants some bang for his buck but i don't think that will shape as much policy as the union's funding of labour (no outsourcing in NHS, no competition in schools, royal mail, etc)

    I don't have a preference for conservs of labour, don't live in UK, not allowed to vote. Just try to make some money betting on direction of policy. Guardian has many good leads on future policy becuase at the moment it's a mouthpiece for the current government and its advisers or fans (everyone wanting to print money and keep interest rates zero and not lower the budget deficit)

    Aloha!

  • Orthus Orthus

    18 Mar 2010, 12:40AM

    Sweeting

    Explain how a juvenile ad hominem attack counts as a neat skewering of an idea.

    Explain what ad hominem means. Clue: it doesn't mean name calling.

  • Kris1988 Kris1988

    18 Mar 2010, 12:52AM

    Cameron is opportunism with a human face. The BA strike is an industrial dispute and Cameron is using it as a smoke screen to cover up his dodgey deals with Lord Cascroft. A deal was close to being struck last week and now Cameron has made the situation more difficult. If hewas PM, I dread to think what would happen.

  • regor1 regor1

    18 Mar 2010, 1:15AM

    Kris1988 and what dodgy deal are you referring to. The money given by Ashcroft has been cleared by the commission so perhaps you would explain what dodgy deal Cameron has made.
    I think people will be genuinely horrified to find that the Labour Party receives 25% of its funds from one Union and sponsors well over 100 of its MPs.
    I don't think people had any idea of the extent that this government is in hock to the union and I think this may well cost them votes.The percentage given by Ashcroft of the total the Conservatives receive is very small when compared with the 25% given by UNITE.

  • harbinger harbinger

    18 Mar 2010, 7:27AM

    For once I agree with Michael White.

    Gove is proving to be, well how shall we put it........... a bit odd ball? Or is he the real face of Dave's Tories, lashing out with so clear sense of what they are doing, other than lashing out.

    Yes, agreed that the big problem is out of control capitalism. Greed and self interest are at the heart of human affairs. Which is why we have rules.

    Yet Thatcher came to us with the notion that managers and bosses were good people who could do no wrong. She believed that her own kind were 'chosen' to lead and spread prosperity to us all. Was it not her guru in residence Milton Friedmann who said entrepreneurial man was genetically incapable of getting it wrong?

    This belief can be found in the strange assumption that letting bankers get stonking rich will benefit the rest of us.

    There is no earthly proof, no study has ever been done, to prove this. They avoid taxes, they become non doms, and what largesse they do hand over to the public purse is frittered away by the government.

    What does a banker do who earns in excess of twelve million a year? That is one million a month. He could not begin to spend a fraction of it. There is a limit to the houses you can buy, the expensive meals you can eat, the schools you can afford, the cars you can run, the servants you can employ.

    And remember much of his 'expenses' are paid for by the bank itself.

    Once you go beyond what is reasonable even by rich standards it starts to become spending money for the sake of it, like some Russian oligarch.

    Our politicians love the rich, not in order to persuade them to become old fashioned benefactors of society, as many rich Victorians were, but to enrich themselves and their party.

    The fact that politicians from Blair onwards are eager to supp at the table of the rich, to sleep on their yachts, to fly in their planes, live rent free in their holiday island homes tells us how corrupt this relationship has become.

    Would it not be better for Ashcroft to endow civic projects rather than give his millions to Dave? Ashcroft should forget his political ambitions and become a true benefactor of the people. We would have more respect for him and his kind, rather than think he is no better than a tasteless oik from the wastelands of Russia.

  • MikeWhitereplies MikeWhitereplies

    19 Mar 2010, 8:48AM

    Staff Staff

    Can you pick another nickname, Jefferson, because some of us associate the name with an admired US president and hate to think of him even remotely linked to your very stupid remark posted above. " Labour to blame for America," not even the Daily Mail would claim that.

    There's a useful bit of context here. Yes, Unite gives Labour MPs some money, small amounts nowadays - less for instance than Lord A******t has given to Tory candidates in key marginals - but it matters so much less than in the old days when MPs were " sponsored" by unions.

    Why ? Because nowadays MPs get those famous office cost allowances (OCA) from the taxpayer to hire a secretary and rent an office - quite unlike the old days.

    No, the problem nowadays - concentrate Dullard ( what a name!) - is that big money has been unleashed again and counterveiling forces like trade unions weakened. Get a grip, chaps, you don't have to look very hard to work that out!!

    And do spare us the bit about the Guardian's public sector ads revenue,. Many years ago when fat cat Tory newspapers were doing very well out of private sector ads the Guardian quietly built up a modest niche in public sector ads which turned out to be a sensible move.

    In tougher times the Tory papers did two things:
    a) attack the "unfairness" of it all, under Tory as well as Labour governments; b) try and capture a slice of the market for themselves.

    In other words they had missed a market opportunity and pretended they had been robbed.

    Unfortunately the public sector ad market has declined too. That's one reason among several why the Guardian is currently making a loss. You jeer at us about that too - but you can't have it both ways, though i realise you will try.

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Politics blog weekly archives

Mar 2010
M T W T F S S

Find your constituency

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop