The Media Can’t Cover Me Because I’m Part of a Union
Unions are not covered in the media with the depth they deserve. Labour is one of the biggest losers.
The days of “industrial correspondents” are dead, but with such an interesting election occurring in Unite the Union you’d expect at least some depth of coverage.
Labour’s future will not necessarily depend on the outcome but it will be influenced by it. Moderates and the wider Labour movement need to get their heads around the currents of internal union news — but where can they turn?
Unite was once the largest trade union in the country and it still represents hundreds of thousands of people including all those in workplaces who benefit indirectly from a strong union presence.
It has also been the first union to make their political views known to both Party and papers. The media, which historically covered unions like any other market-moving force, have become complacent.
When the Guardian marked its 200 birthday in an accompanying podcast political correspondents joked about how many industrial correspondents the Guardian and the FT had.
Today — despite very encouraging news of the increase in union membership for the fourth consecutive year — the 6.6 million people who are members of the union are very much a minority concern for the media.
In the past, unions were covered with a depth that allowed the public to fully understand not just industrial actions, but also political actions.
The 1980s saw the nuance of inter and intra union political debate fully discussed. For example, exposing the St Ermin’s Group which brought together union bosses and Moderate Party figures.
(NB: This group had tangible success: the realisation they could bloc vote for Right-leaning candidates got Dennis Healy elected as Deputy Leader and left Benn “popular but powerless.”)
Today, however, newsrooms have been butchered. The occasional leak to a Murdoch paper, a write-up of someone in the FT, something sycophantic on a Labour website, or a long-read filled with quotes in the Observer, does not bring deep illumination.
And this is a disaster for union members, unions themselves, but crucially the Labour Party. Let’s take Unite’s current leadership brawl which perfectly combines the poor coverage on union matters with the large consequences we have come to expect within Labour.
Len McClusky (who has led Unite since 2011, and has a penchant for posing with Chess pieces) is standing down. He was thought to be an Andy Burnham-backer in 2015, until he became the key figure in getting Corbyn into power and keeping him there*.
He is now not only not the leader of the country’s largest union (that is moderate Christine McAnea at Unison), he’s also in the wilderness after Sir Keir’s election in 2020. That’s before we get to the other more dubious troubles of the Unite leadership.
Nevertheless, he is going to be replaced. Much of the media is convinced his replacement will be a man called Howard Beckett — someone suspended from the Labour Party after a tweet about Priti Patel. This is of note because not only is it never great when trade unions and the Party fight, but also because Labour is governed by a coalition of forces within their National Executive Committee (NEC).
The NEC is currently balanced among its 28 members — Sir Keir and thus the Moderates hold a steady but close majority. The last elections slashed the number of Hard Leftists, but not to a rump and neither as much as was expected by some on the Right.
But Howard Beckett, who sits in the NEC as a Unite representative and is transparently an influential force among other union reps, can lead a rearguard action if he so pleases.
Knowing the rulebook is a kind of the Labour Game and the Left always seem to win, especially when it involves controlling committees and other opaque power structures (the NEC handle disputes as an example…).
So it is in Labour members interests to understand who might be in control of the two delegates sent by Unite to the NEC. Again, the media are clearly of the view it is Mr Beckett.
The incredibly softball interview on Newsnight (after yet another scandal involving him) was seemingly predicated on the belief he would win.
Which was presumably why he was allowed to say (unchallenged by the interviewer) Siobhain McDonagh was (among other vaguely dodgy comments about her) in the wrong Party. This is despite a) his own suspension from said Party b) Siobhain being a Labour MP since 1997 and c) her sister being a Labour peer and former General Secretary of the Party.
Yet what seems remiss through all of this lazy media assumptions is: Howard Beckett could lose and no one is talking about it.
The last time Unite went through a leadership election Len McCluskey was reelected on a narrow basis in 2017. Gerard Coyne took 41.5 per cent of the vote, with an Independent candidate taking a remarkable but not decisive 13.1 per cent.
Mr Coyne, who is backed by figures on the Right, then went through various trials and tribulations followed at a distance by the media. But he’s back. And this time he might actually do it.
The 13.1 per cent for the grassroots candidate is decent, but the real “splitter” candidate is to be seen in the form of Steve Turner who not only has picked up support from Labour Left figures, he’s also won the union’s internal Left faction (United Left) backing.
Then on top of that there is Sharon Graham who is actually the first of all candidates to have secured a place on the ballot and is backed by the Socialist Worker.
Essentially: Unite’s leadership election is going to be interesting with real consequences for one of the country’s biggest working organisations, the Party, and quite possibly the UK**.
Yet internal discussions among unions are just not covered. This week paper hardly covered the election (in any detail) of the new GMB leader (welcomed by Labour First et al) despite them holding increasing seats, money, and influence within the Party.
Who are people to turn to in this media-blackout environment?
Workers Liberty (a group which ends every write-up with words to the effect of “A Plague on Both Your Houses”), Labour List (which takes money from the unions it’s meant to be reporting on), some other Labour blogs from the Far Far Left (inexplicably, but yes, ditto)? Or the papers owned by millionaires and who serve that rather narrow interest group? Or the Private Eye (who’s union correspondent is called Black Leg which is hardly a great start)?
A product of a union structure that is complicated and a media cut to the bones? Yes but…
Labour Moderates are increasingly shoring up their position by an building up a Starmer-friendly union bloc. After a while of very bitter Party-Union relations*** it is crucial this group of Moderate Union Leaders are welcomed, supported, and strengthened.
Moderates need to get to grips with the internal politics of affiliated unions so they’re not victims of another Leftist decade funded off the backs of workers’ subs.
*Something very interesting is what happens to those Unite-backed MPs who were elected for their Corbyn-friendly vibes in a post-Len (and possibly post-Howard) world?
**On top of all this, I always think understanding unions are interesting for other reasons — trade unionists have never been universally Labour. Just as some working class voters have always voted Tory, trade union members have too.
Which makes understanding what unions are doing on a political level revealing about both their own perceived strength within their union, but also what they think Labour can get away with amongst their Tory-voting members who pay their political fund subs, while also furthering union bosses’ illustrious Worker Solidarity-type dreams.
*** I often find it strange how Labour Moderates and the media have sort of just forgotten how Ed Miliband became LOTO… Unions are important to understand if you want to understand politics — it simply cannot be dismissed as “fringe.”
