Serving us and boosting our economy - Public Ownership

In the wake of the Ed Miliband/Daily Mail saga, a blog from James Maxwell of the New Statesman has an interesting series of points to make on the difference between Milliband’s pledges on the UK stage and Salmond’s in Scotland.

His point is essentially that while Miliband is (possibly against his will) being forced to challenge the UK consensus that the the Tories, their coalition partners and New Labour have espoused for a number of decades now - that an unregulated private sector is the saviour of the UK economy and that there is no role for the state to intervene; here in Scotland - despite the opportunities offered for challenging this consensus by the independence referendum - Alex Salmond shows no sign of doing so. Indeed he points to many policies where the SNP have actually moved towards the UK consensus.

To be fair, he also points to a range of policies where the SNP and Scottish Government are still to the left of the Labour Party, but the difference in challenging ‘business and its vested interests’ is marked. 

  The Scottish government was almost alone in retaining close relationships with News International, when even their close political pals were abandoning them. They have consistently courted tax-dodging corporations like Amazon, and argued against state intervention to take our share of windfall profits by North Sea energy companies, or to freeze energy prices to the consumer.

And where is the evidence that these policies work? Ofgen warns of power black-outs by 2015 as a result of lack of investment in the privatised energy sector. Privatised rail has the highest subsidies in Europe – except where the publicly owned East Coast line has delivered almost £1billion in profit. A socially disastrous housing crisis has resulted from the inability of the private sector to provide affordable houses. Yet elsewhere in the world there is economic growth – and it is generally in those countries where there is a significant measure of public ownership and active public support for industry.

In this context Sunday’s conference taking place in Glasgow on the need for greater public input

into our economic life is remarkably appropriate. While few at the conference would put much faith in Miliband, the lack of arguments for increased public ownership that have come out of the ‘indyref’ debate despite the spectacular failure of privatised companies, will hopefully be rectified by an impressive range of speakers. Economists and researchers like the STUC’s Stephen Boyd, and UNISONScotland policy chief, Dave Watson will be joined by politicians from both Labour (Neil Findlay MSP) and the SNP (Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group). The conference will examine the evidence for successful public sector intervention, from the past and from the present, from the UK and from elsewhere in the world.

The conference is organised by the Morning Star’s Scottish Campaign Committee and takes place from 11 am at the STUC offices in Woodlands Road, Glasgow. Further details here.

Working in unison needs a broad base

Coalition formed in UNISON?

Amongst all the surprise and astonishment that has greeted the 'historic' Labour/SNP coalition in Edinburgh (although constituents in East Renfrewshire might be forgiven for questioning the novelty of this situation) it is interesting to consider a factor that might well have been a catalyst,

A factor that has not been publicly mentioned (as far as I know) is what happened in the huge furore around the LibDems' Alternative Business Model (ABM) proposals in the last administration. The proposals, which primarily involved privatising both support and front-line services in the city, caused a huge backlash, with a very successful campaign, led by the council trade unions but incorporating a much wider community base, ultimately leading to its defeat.

Of course, given the knife-edge balance of the previous party make up (29 each with the Tories always likely to back selling off services), this defeat had to involve detaching SNP support from their LibDem coalition partners and a joint vote with Labour (and the Greens) to defeat the plans.

UNISON (the largest council union) activists in the city have admitted privately that their greatest concern was the the notorious resentment between Labour and the Nationalists might scupper the final votes. In the midst of a very vocal and highly-charged campaign, the difficulty in gaining the joint support of the two key parties without pushing either into a political corner was a manoeuvre worthy of Balkan dexterity!

Working together

As is now known, it was ultimately successful and scuppered the LibDem privatisation plans in all areas. Ultimately two ABMs were defeated by joint Labour/SNP amendments and the LibDems threw the other one out themselves. The two parties also – it now appears – reaped the benefits in the elections. Jenny Dawe and her LD colleagues were left to face the full wrath of the electorate on their own.

Was this experience a straw in the wind of this week's shock coalition? A positive experience in working together can only have assisted the move towards it. Too much cannot be ascribed to this working together, or indeed should it be predicted for this coalition. The economic future for all local government in Scotland is bleak, and difficult times lie ahead. Not only will these strain the alliance, they will almost certainly mean issues with their own workforce and with the communities they serve.

Lessons that both Councillor Burns and Councillor Cardownie need to heed are that power does not simply involve the division of positions on the council, but must ensure that services are defended for their communities. And just as the workforce was instrumental in piloting joint activity over the ABM crisis, they need to continue to be part of the working together package to steer Edinburgh through the crises to come.

Independence - which way will the Trades Unions jump?

This is the substance of a contribution I made to a recent debate organised by the Communist Party of Scotland on the topic of trade unions and independence. Other contributers included Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group, Jimmy Cloughley of the CPS and ex-UCS Steward and Dave Moxham, DGS of the STUC. I believe it is planned to put out a pamphlet collecting the contributions together. 

Despite the somewhat febrile, and often almost certainly manufactured reports that pass for debate on the issue of independence in the press - and not just the tabloids - This is certainly the first serious discussion that I am aware of that covers this ground - a fact that in itself is significant and says much about where TUs are at the moment. More on that later.

Who are we talking about?

The first thing to say about Scottish Trade Unions is of course that there are damn few of them! With the exception of the teaching profession, the vast majority of TUs operating in Scotland are UK organisations which sometimes have a Scottish organisation with a degree of autonomy, more or less broad depending on the organisation.

(Of course some TUs are actually British Isles-wide operations - with sections in the Irish Republic and/or Northern Ireland, but that would be to open up another whole debate).

Despite the increasingly separate nature of law, politics, media and attitudes in Scotland, very few TUs have properly addressed these factors. When I was appointed by Nalgo in 1989, I was the only TU publicity person employed in Scotland, and even then I was officially attached to the union’s London department, who told me that I should not be dealing with the Scottish media!

The arrival of a Scottish Parliament, a merger of unions and a reorganisation of HQ departments took place before even UNISON - and I venture to suggest that they were in the forefront of addressing the issues - set up the type of structure that took cognisance of the new realities in Scotland.

Now the recognition of these needs is wider, but I venture to suggest that it still isn’t universal in the TU movement. This, of course, has an impact not only in the union concerned but in STUC - a fully autonomous body, able to (and I suggest very successfully) articulate and promote the TU movement’s profile and views with Scotland’s politicians, media and civic society. The STUC, however, is resourced and financed by these same central UK organisations with varying levels of autonomy. The last factor of all to be autonomised, of course being finance!! (Even UNISON - with its high levels of Branch organisation, policy, media, campaigning, bargaining, and communications autonomy, still pays its STUC affiliation fees from London, and technically its delegation to Congress is bound by UNISON UK policy).

A rough count suggests that of 650,000 TU members in Scotland - 580,000 are in UK-based unions.

What shapes their policy?

Of course, if we are looking at attitudes to independence, it will not always be the case that this will be dependent on where the union is based. Policy-making is sometimes a complex process in our TUs and there are degrees of relaxation on whether policy on Scottish issues is made close to the source, or remotely from London - often degrees of relaxation that vary according to the issue. In UNISON for example, London would be relaxed about a Scottish policy decision being taken on (say) devolution of broadcasting, but would be far from relaxed on a Scottish policy calling for (say) the break up of the NHS. In either case, however, ultimately the union’s policy will be adopted by the union as a whole.

In fact the NHS proves to be an interesting case in point illustrating another factor that will influence TU attitudes to independence. It is something that has already caused waves within UNISON and will no doubt, have varying impacts on other unions. The principle that someone doing a particular job in one hospital or clinic (or any other workplace) should be paid the same as someone doing that job in another, is a strongly-held union principle and one that underpins grading structures in UK-wide organisations such as the NHS. 

It is of course, also one that employers increasingly want to scrap, so the thought that independence may give that attack further support may well predispose TU activist minds (on both side of the border) in opposition to independence.

A similar concern may also apply in regard to reserved legislation such as that covering employment, work-related benefits and health and safety. Should you lose protection in work when you cross a border? Currently TUs would answer ‘No’ to that, though of course current Tory proposals to attack these rights may sway debate in this area.

Affiliation

A third factor that will militate against TUs deciding in favour of independence, is of course, affiliation to the Labour Party, which is not in favour.

There are 14 Scottish unions affiliated to the Labour Party. (One union affiliate has no members in Scotland). And they cover around 441,000 of the members in Scotland.

Of course, that isn’t the whole story in terms of their membership. Many of the affiliated unions will have substantial membership numbers in Scotland who do not pay the political levy or who do, but would support independence in any case. 

I think UNISON is unique in its twin-track affiliated/non-affiliated political funding, but the SNP TU group has been campaigning for some years now for people to opt-out of affiliated political funds in other unions, (in my view a serious mistake). This will have had some success. Plus there will be members of all affiliated unions down South who don’t pay the political levy and/or who may be part of what I call the ‘sod-off Jock!’ tendency increasingly seen in parts of England.

So, you will have a membership, even in the affiliated unions, who may be ripe to hear the arguments for independence. Whether they will have the strength, the power or the tenacity to have an impact on their union’s policy on the matter, however, is debatable.

Non-Affiliated - potential supporters?

Of course to view those unions that are not affiliated as natural supporters of independence is also a mistake. in my view. While the likes of the FBU and RMT might be thought to be only too happy to be an awkward squad - especially if Labour is on the opposite side - it should be remembered that the FBU is of course part of a UK bargaining machine similar to that in the NHS. So too are the Civil Service unions. and for them you can add an almost pathological aversion to publicly siding with any political view that would be seen as party political - in the way that independence will.

Even in my own union, the NUJ - most likely to be relaxed about dealing with union organisation across boundaries - after all they already do it in Ireland, I think the view that as journalists we must be even-handed to all sides will hold a lot of sway.

But this brief survey is maybe a little missing the point. After all, TUs are essentially - much as we might not like it - not think tanks, not policy wonks breaking new ground with blue sky thinking - but essentially pragmatic organisations that have been created to defend and advance the living and working standards of their members. In many ways reactive rather than proactive organisations.

How will they decide?

I don’t doubt that in the fevered hothouses of TU research departments in Edinburgh and Glasgow (but of course mostly in London) there are people pouring over research, and analyses trying to work out the ‘what-if’s’ of Scottish Independence. But it isn’t occupying the waking hours of their members. No doubt, if and when a referendum is called, then the TU movement will take a decision (or many different decisions) on their policies, but I venture to suggest, if we are talking about reactive organisations with a clear function on defending members, then those debates will be set in the context of ‘what is the impact on our members?’. In a nutshell - will Scottish Independence be a benefit or a detriment to those members - not just in Scotland but across the memberships? At the current time it seems unlikely that this question will be answered in the affirmative.

Are concerns allayed by independence?

The current concerns of TU members - are remarkably similar and similar across the nations of the UK. The threats to jobs, pay, services and of course, currently pensions stems from the Westminster Government’s austerity measures and is being fought - in my view correctly - with a UK-wide co-ordination. While the Scottish Government is able to (and does) criticise these policies, they find themselves in the position of largely passing on the cuts to their recipients in the public and voluntary sectors.

Indeed, while ‘It’s all the fault of Westminster’, is a sentiment we can probably unite around, the suggestions so far about what an independent Scotland would look like, is currently unclear, and the signs are not good. For example, why does the Scottish Government want to control Corporation Tax so badly? To ensure that the bankers and financiers who drove us unheeding into the debt crisis pay back the bail out that they received from us? Apparently not, what is required according to the Scottish Government, is less tax on business to attract more overseas companies into Scotland. The Scottish Government has been notably business friendly in many areas -  the Scottish Futures organisation with its attempts to continue the PFI route (watch out for more of that shortly, by the way), is merely another example.

On the positive side, of course, in Scotland there is a greater value placed on, and defense of public services and public provision. I wouldn’t want to ignore that courageous decision of Nicola Sturgeon to build the new SGH through public provision for example. 

But this attitude to public services largely crosses party boundaries in Scotland - and, what is more, has been a distinctive feature of devolution in any case - so any specific advantage of independence still remains to be clearly spelled out.

Still a huge job to be done

In short, there is some way to go before the Scottish Government or other advocates of Scottish independence can articulate an argument that details a practical case that working people will significantly benefit from independence for Scotland, and such an argument will be important in attracting potential allies from TUs and their activists.

Does all this suggest that those who wish to call for independence need to look elsewhere and ignore the TU movement? Can I suggest they shouldn’t? When Alex Salmond celebrated his stunning victory on May, he said he planned to try and govern though consensus. There has, unfortunately been little practical experience of that so far, but I think that it remains the only sensible aim.

And maybe if it can’t happen inside the Parliament, maybe it should happen outside. After all the trade union movement - well at least the majority of it inside Scotland - isn’t, I don’t think, scared of independence. After all there are already many areas where they have suggested increasing powers to be devolved and contributed much of the evidence to the much-maligned Scotland Bill - devolution of broadcasting, equal opportunities, and immigration legislation are proposals that come immediately to my mind. There are more.

No, the TU movement currently cannot see the relevance of the independence debate, and when the issue looms larger in their ken, they will remain to be convinced. Not an impossibility, but a job that remains to be done.

YouGov! What, MeGov?

If opinion polls are to be believed, Labour is heading for an embarrassing dip in votes and seats at the forthcoming Holyrood elections. Some more excitable commentators have even been moved to predict a ‘crushing defeat’*. However, as most activists and politicians know, polls are more useful as weapons than as sources of clear information. They may (as these recent ones undoubtedly will) be used to galvanise Labour’s notoriously sluggish turnout. They will be used to glorify the name of Salmond. But in all cases polls are deceptive. They were when predicting a Labour lead of up to 10 points early in this campaign, they were when predicting a Lib Dem surge in 2010’s Westminster election, and they are now.

Anyone remember last year, the incredulity with which both media and politicians dismissed the TV exit poll, because it gave the lie to the polls’ prediction? For the record that exit poll forecast Con - between 303-306 seats; Lab - between 251 and 262 seats; LibDem - between 69 and 55 seats (the figures were revised as the night went on) The actual result? Con - 306; Lab - 258; LibDem - 57.)

There are at least three reasons why opinion polls need to be treated with caution. Pollsters themselves recognise that,  unless the sample is huge, a margin of error factor of plus or minus 3%. So a poll predicting a 6% lead could equally suggest a neck-and-neck race. But this is well-known (although not well-reported). Less well considered are methodology and sample taking. YouGov for example, selects its respondents from an internet panel of people who have chosen to volunteer for this work in exchange for cash. The company, says it uses demographic information to balance its results, but there are two or three chances for skewing the sample here, and their methodology remains hotly debated.

Less obvious recently has been the introduction into Scotland of differential swings in local areas. It has been very obvious in Westminster elections that swings vary considerably in different parts of the UK - the increasing Westminster vote for Labour last time being a glaring example . It has been less so within Scotland. I suggest that this is changing, and will make this election virtually impossible to call by extrapolating from opinion polls. It is not just where the disenchanted LibDem votes go. The SNP will surely do best in rural constituencies if that vote does implode, but it may well be different in places like Dunfermline and possibly in Edinburgh. And in the second vote, any shift away from the LibDems will surely benefit the Greens. It seems also clear that the Tory vote will largely hold up - even if only because it has been bumping along the bottom for some time.

It isn’t simply the potential melt down of the LD vote (and in any case I suspect that the polls overestimate this likelihood too.) but the impact of local party politics via local council control. For the first time we have a Scottish Election being fought with councils under a variety of party and coalition controls. This may play out differently in different areas. Again Edinburgh, with the LibDems and SNP in coalition presiding over the debacle of the tram project, and proposals to outsource huge rafts of council services, will LD votes go to their SNP partners? Has the recent controversy over education cuts in Renfrewshire, and the SNP council leader’s climbdown scuppered his chances in Renfrewshire North? What will be the impact of the Aberdeenshire Council LibDem’s public fallout over the Trump development - particularly in the list where Cllr Martin Ford now tops the list for the Greens? 

Of course the final reason that opinion polls never tell the whole story is that they are never told the whole story! The recent YouGov poll for example - even now finds that around 30% of those asked are either uncertain whether they will vote, or certain not to. That is a large undecided area to exclude. (YouGov also has a very low incidence of ‘won’t say’s - almost certainly because their sampling comes from the self-selected panel referred to in para 1).

So, while the trends are important and justify the Labour Party’s attempts to rejuvenate their campaign, the details of recent polls are no more (or less) significant than the earlier ones.

As ever, oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. Only May 5 will tell whether the Scottish electorate is sufficiently annoyed with the SNP government for them to have ‘lost’ this one. I suspect that it is going to be a much closer call than opinion pollsters tell us.

*Peter Kellner in a commentary on his own organisation’s poll

CBI economics is busted flush

Interesting to read the thoughts of CBIScotland (or at least its Chair - Iain McMillan) in the Herald today (29 December). No doubt this was taken from a ‘end-of-year message’ press release used by many organisations to get some press coverage at a thin time of the year.

You might think that, as the representative body of private sector organisations, including finance companies who bear the responsibility for the economic crisis and the attacks on public funding by the Tories, the CBI might be expressing some contrition for putting us all through this - but no. Mr McMillan has the effrontery to chastise the Scottish Government (and other political parties apparently) for not following the CBI’s preferred course out of the economic crisis!

Just for the record this includes - cutting public spending and so-called ‘red tape’, increased PFI, using more private firms to deliver public services, selling-off Scottish Water, and building more nuclear power plants. (He grudgingly welcomes the council tax freeze - despite the damage that this has already done to local services and indeed local businesses who depend on public work).

Thus the CBI show that they have learned nothing from their members’ failings in too lightly regulated markets. Cut red tape? We should be demanding that banks and other finance companies are penalised for the damage they have done to our economy. Increase privatisation? Far from exposing more services to private sector risk, we should accept that this risk will always lie with the public sector, and supply these services publicly - not via expensive and poor value private companies. 

I hold no brief for the Scottish Government - indeed there are many areas where I could be even more critical than Mr McMillan - but his analysis of the economic situation would lead us even deeper into the mire of stagnation and even recession. Just watch what ConDem policies - slavishly following a big business line - deliver for us at UK level

But apparently defending public services and public funding is ‘populist’. According to oor Iain “...real leadership is about doing the right things for Scotland at the right time and explaining why they are necessary.” Given the track record of the UK business community in losing trillions of pounds and then screaming for a huge public handout, I think we can see why ‘the right things’ are unlikely to be done by the CBI, and why it has forfeited all credibility as a business leader.

And a memo to Iain Gray. Just because someone is having a go at the SNP - it is not always in your (or our) interests to agree with them. The old Maoist doctrine of ‘The enemy  of my enemy, is my friend.” has led China’s leaders into some very strange alliances over the years. In the run up to an election, to be seen to side with the busted flush of big business will not gain support.