The Tories are running a gauntlet by questioning Labour’s Union links
Recently, the Tories have been highlighting Labour’s links with the Unions, in particular Unite in a clear response to Labour’s Lord Ashcroft attacks. Without question Labour is closely connected with Unite, whose political director, Charlie Whelan happens to be a former advisor to Number 10 and was allegedly one of those who unleashed the forces of hell on Alistair Darling.
But, are the Conservatives asking for trouble by going down this road?
The Conservatives seem to think that voters will be astonished that Labour has links with the Unions. Umm, that is just the way it is and the way it has always been, it isn’t going to change and it isn’t a surprise to the public. Issue over.
The Conservatives also seem to be under the impression that this connection will outrage voters. Well, again, everyone knows Labour and the Unions are one and the same, so no outrage. However, instead of leaking a great secret, they are running a dangerous gauntlet. Sure, union power and membership is at a historic low, but there are still a lot of people who are union members and a lot still who have sympathy for them. The Conservatives have to be very, very careful that they don’t threaten these voters.
Unlike previous points in history, many of these members or sympathisers could have voted Conservative at this election, because of the uncertainty over Brown and the desire for change and the fact people realised they can think for themselves. However, how will these voters react to Cameron trashing the Unions and at the same time talking about public spending cuts and an age of austerity? People will add this up to mean Cameron will come down hard on the unions if he won, leading to less protection to workers, especially in the public sector, when the inevitable time for job cuts arrive. The threat to worker protection will make union voters run away from the Conservatives and back into the waiting arms of the Labour Party, who will always protect the unions.
Cameron today in PMQs spoke about breaking the picket line. Whether you are a member of a union or not, many many people feel uncomfortable with crossing a picket line. I do and I’m not a member of a union. It’s a call to action for the Tory base, but it will not necessarily grab the swing votes.
Ashcroft is also an issue in this. Why is this being raised? Because the Tories want to fight back against the Ashcroft scandal. By attacking Labour funding, they just allow Labour to bring back the Ashcroft issue again and again and again. The Tories think attack is the best form of defence and sometimes it is, but other times well should be left alone.
Finally, the Tories are obviously trying to hark back to the bad old days of the Winter of Discontent. But Labour supporters and the Unions haven’t forgotten what came after that Winter, their mortal enemy Margaret Thatcher. When Cameron talks about crossing picket lines, removing union power and significant cuts to public spending people’s minds will start reaching some uncomfortable connections.
Brown is suggesting that Cameron is trying to fuel the strike, rather than help it come to a resolution, this too is going to scare people, because it suggests to them, Cameron is for divisive politics, while Brown is trying to create himself as the great unifier. Will it work? Possibly not, but Brown suggests if there is a strike, it will be more the fault of the Tories than Labour. This of course is a tad ridiculous considering the Conservatives are in Opposition, but if sold well, it could stick in the minds of the public.
But how will this resolve itself? If the BA concerns are solved and the strike averted, then Brown will appear to be the great saviour. If there is still a strike, Labour will blame the Tories and maybe get away with it. It is an interesting situation and I think the Conservatives may have fallen into a trap. It will be interesting to see if they get out of it, but this is election politics for you.
Cross posted with my personal blog.
Tags: BA, Brown, cameron, Charlie Whelan, forces of hell, strike, thatcher
Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious
Comments (2)
March 17th, 2010 at 5:34 pm Posted by Ged Carroll
I disagree with you on the great Thatcherite threat, if Cameron has achieved one thing it is making vote conservative less socially unacceptable amongst generation X by making them so bland. Generation Y could not even remember Thatcher let alone the poll tax riots or the ITN footage of the police beating miners to a pulp.
The rise of Respect and the BNP show how far labour has moved from it being the party of the ‘working man’. There is a substantial amount of apathy and anger out there. It isn’t particularly well targeted but could affect labour heartland seats.
Much of the union support now lies in the public sector which have been shielded from the reconstruction that private sector workers have experienced since the early 80s and with the exception of front line services like nurses and firemen they probably have little public sympathy.
The parties themselves to the largely disinterested eye have never looked so similar.
Politicians are tainted in the public eye, from unpopular laws to perceived corruption as unlike a decade ago there is no longer a party of sleaze; so the winner is likely to be the least worst option.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:21 am Posted by Chris Greaves
It is interesting to see the Tories bashing Labour for their union links, and Labour bashing the Tories for the so-called Ashcroft scandal.
One has only to look at the basic history of the Labour Party to realise that the union links are such a non-story for those who follow politics. On the other hand, the issue of these links might be a relevant factor for the new generation of voters we get at each election, and it is important that young voters and recently-arrived immigrants are made aware of the facts before they potentially vote for the first time.
Turning to the relevance of the Ashcroft scandal, all of us who are interested in politics will never forget the fact that the Tories were roundly rejected by the people in 1997 because they were so deeply mired in sleaze. On the other hand, the Ashcroft scandal is relevant for new voters because it tells voters that some of those at the forefront of the Tory party still seem primarily interested in increasing their personal wealth (when they already clearly have wealth that the rest of us can only ever dream about) irrespective of whether the means to that additional wealth is ethical and legal or not. The Neil Hamilton affair was neither ethical nor legal, and the Ashcroft scandal is certainly not ethical, so it all goes to show that a leopard never changes its spots, and new voters need to be reminded of that. Remember also the infamous duck island!
All of which is to totally ignore the likely winners of the upcoming general election, the Liberal Democrats. The apparent likelihood of a hung parliament means that the real power will be with the LibDems. A recent poll suggested that 60% of the public would like to see Vince Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer. What are the chances, therefore, that installing Dr Cable as Chancellor will be part of the price of any deal after the election if there is a hung parliament? It would clearly be hugely popular with the public and would demonstrate real leadership and real authority by the only mainstream party that the other two don’t seem to be attacking!
Post Your Comment