................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
JOHN EDMONDS INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 6.6.93
................................................................................
JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: And now to Her Majesty's loyal
Opposition, last week we focussed on a looming crisis for John Smith. The
leader of the Labour Party has staked much on his pledge to introduce one
member, one vote for the selection of Parliamentary candidates and for the
leader of the Party. He has resolved to get this reform endorsed at the Labour
Party Conference this autumn but he is facing apparenly intransigent opposition
from some key union bosses led by John Edmonds, whose union the GMB meets this
weekend to decide which way to vote on the issue. As if that were not enough,
John Edmonds has today launched a fierce critique of the Labour Party's
performance under Mr. Smith's leadership warning that the Party must shake
itself out of apathy or face losing yet another General Election.
John Edmonds, you could hardly be less
helpful to John Smith and the Labour Party could you by accusing the Party
under his leadership of being trapped in lethargy, running out of time and all
that?
JOHN EDMOND: Well the criticism wasn't directed at
the Party leader is was directed at the Party as a whole. We don't seem to
have escaped from the shock of the election defeat last year and we don't seem
to be able to get ourselves together to face what is going to be three or four
years of determined opposition but most of all, we are not giving the sort of
vision of a Labour Britain that is necessary if we are going to turn those
many people who are disgusted by this government into committed Labour
supporters.
DIMBLEBY: But if the leadership vision is not
there and you are not getting it and if the Cabinet ... Shadow Cabinet is at
fault, then it's the failure of the leadership of John Smith, you can't draw
any other conclusion.
EDMONDS: Well we have the policies of course and
what I am worried about is that in certain areas they are not being projected
with the great enthusiasm. I mean this is not my view, I mean, if I was the
only person who felt like this, I'd just be keeping my mouth shut, but we're at
the GMB Congress as you say, and many, many union members have said to me when
is the Labour Opposition going to project what it stands for across a whole
wide range of issues? John Smith's leadership, in style with his personality
is of someone who is bringing together a Cabinet of all the talents and all of
those talents need to work very hard to project a vision of Labour Britain, as
indeed also should Labour councils and the trade unions ...
DIMBLEBY: And they are failing at the moment.
EDMONDS: And I have to say that at the moment the
successes that are being scored are largely because the Tories are scoring own
goals.
DIMBLEBY: David Blunkett today responds to what
you are saying by charging you of running around like a headless chicken.
EDMONDS: Well sometimes people respond rather
badly to criticism, I am sorry about that, but sometimes you have to listen to
criticism from your friends. This is not some isolated feeling, this is a
feeling that is expressed very strongly throughout the union of which I am
General Secretary. A number of speeches this morning on the first morning of
our Congress expressed the same sort of worry about whether the Labour Party
will be able to project a popular vision of itself which will convince people
to vote for it, rather than simply vote in disgust at this Conservative
government.
DIMBLEBY: So has John Smith got to give his
colleagues a kick up the backside, effectively?
EDMONDS: I think one or two could do with a
little bit of urgent encouragement ...
DIMBLEBY: Who?
EDMONDS: And one purpose of my speech was to do
that. I don't think it would help, it would certainly help this programme, but
I don't think it would help the movement very much if I started picking out
individuals. There have been some noteable success, in some areas we have
perhaps been a good deal less than successful.
DIMBLEBY: Now if you are regarding this as a
helpful contribution to the debate and not damaging to the Party, can I
put it to you that your views on one member, one vote, could not be less
helpful to John Smith, and let me explain to you why. He has staked a great
deal on getting one member, one vote through at this Party Conference. You are
saying so long as I am around, if my voice is heard, you can't have one member,
one vote.
EDMONDS: Not my voice, the voice of large
numbers of trade unionists. Last year we had a ballot of our membership to
elect the Party leader. Our members as affiliated members of the Labour Party
took part, a hundred and forty thousand of them voted, now you can't say to
those people who voted with enthusiasm, with interest, committing themselves to
the Party and paying contributions to the Party, you can't say this year ah, we
have changed our mind, we're going to take away your vote. It's nonsense and
those hundred and forty thousand people have every ..cause to say, this isn't
democracy, this is a narrowing of the franchise in the Party, this is making
the Labour Party into a more exclusive Party, a more limited Party. By all
means one person, one vote, but let's make sure that that voting procedure
includes everybody who is in the Party, including those trade unionists, you
can't run the Labour Party by excluding people....
DIMBLEBY: What you are saying is that anyone who
pays the levy is a member of the Party.
EDMONDS: That's what they are of course, they are
affiliated members of the Party. That's what the Party Constitution is.
DIMBLEBY: What you are saying is that trade
unionists who are not full members of the Party should still have a role in
determining who should be the leader of the Party and who should stand as a
candidate for election to Parliament.
EDMONDS: That's exactly right. Some role - not a
role as important as an individual member, but some role. They should have some
voice. Maybe a diminished voice, but it would be totally undemocratic to
deprive them of all their say.
DIMBLEBY: But they don't have to actually be a
member of the Party, they could be a member of any other Party, be a member of
militant tendency.
EDMONDS: Come on now, they are an affiliated
member of the Labour Party, they pay the political levy into the Labour Party.
Now, if it's just a question of tightening up the screening procedures to make
sure that the only people who can vote are those that are committed to the
policy and constitution of the Labour Party, I'm sure we could put in place
procedures for that purpose. But I'm afraid the supporters of OMOV the more
exclusive idea of the Party, won't have any truck with that. They want no
voice for trade unionists, and you can understand trade unionists not being
satisfied with that.
DIMBLEBY: Let me tell you. You may have heard
already that tomorrow a letter is going out, signed by Blunkett, Blair, Brown,
Kinnock and Cook - with the obvious endorsement of the leader, to all Party
constituencies, urging them to support OMOV - one member one vote. Are you
accusing them of people who don't recognise the real nature of democracy?
EDMONDS: Well, I think they should realise that
the Labour Party is a federation made up of two sorts of members. The
individual members and the affiliated members through the trade unions. The
trade union members who pay a large amount of money into the Party from their
individual contributions have to have certain rights if we are going to
describe this Party as a democratic Party. One person one vote - fine.
Provided it includes everybody who is a member of the Party either as an
individual member or as an affiliated member. I don't know why there is this
determined attempt in some quarters to ensure that trade unionists don't have a
say.
DIMBLEBY: Can you think of anything more
calculated to alienate a suspicious electorate than the vision of John Smith
calling for one member one vote and being defeated by Barons yoking him to the
union carthorse again?
EDMONDS: I mean, come on. Let's deal with the
world as it is. The only people that will defeat John Smith, if he is to be
defeated at the Party Conference, is decisions made by conferences like this.
Decisions made by union members voting themselves. This will be a collective
view of very large numbers of people and a lot of trade unionists who have
given a great deal of support and a great deal of encouragement and a great
deal of money to the Party in the past, have an entitlement to a democratic say
in the major decisions of that Party.
We can work that out on the basis of
ballots, on the basis of individual representation. No problems with that, but
you mustn't exclude the trade union levy payers.
DIMBLEBY: Now Mr Edmonds, you're a trade union
leader. Your business is negotiation. There's a proposal put forward by one
of your colleagues that if the leadership were to be decided in some way as you
describe it, then he or his union might say 'Okay, one member one vote on the
question of selecting candidates,' is that a kind of compromise that you can
play with?
EDMONDS: Well, it's a compromise that of course
hasn't been put on the table but the fact of the matter is these are two
separate issues. If you're going to give individual trade union members who
are affiliated members of the Party a say in the leadership, then surely they
should have a say in the selection of local candidates who stand on their
behalf, on behalf of all the members of the Party, in elections.
So there is a separate issue here and
that separate issue has to be approached in a proper way. You can't trade on
democracy here. Either those people who have a membership of the Party have a
right to a voice or they don't. We can't say well we'll give you a voice here,
but not here.
DIMBLEBY: So on this question you say you can't
trade on democracy - your version of it versus their version of it. You are
saying 'I'm not bluffing on this. This is not some trade-off around the corner
that I'll have. I am holding to my guns on this to the bitter end.'
EDMONDS: I am representing the view of large
numbers of union members who were given the opportunity to vote in elections
last year, obviously valued that vote and believe that that vote should
continue since they are affiliated members of the Party. I represent them as a
General Secretary of a union. If they change their mind I will represent their
new view, but at the moment their view is very strong. They are part of the
Party, they say 'It is our Party too,' and they should have a voice in it. One
person one vote - all membership in the Party including trade union membership
should have a voice.
DIMBLEBY: Now you are going to urge them to stick
to their present position tomorrow, quite obviously. That means that you will
go to the Party Conference, if so mandated by your members, and on their behalf
vote against John Smith's proposal?
EDMONDS: That looks to be the very unfortunate
outcome of what I regard as an entirely unnecessary conflict. You see, if we
were just basing this on democracy on the ballots of members there would be no
difficulty. The block vote is being eliminated, individual members are being
given the opportunity to vote. That meets all the standards, all the terms of
democracy. That is the basis of a very reasonable settlement. But the
supporters of OMOV want to go further and say 'No, not the trade union members,
you keep on the outside. It's only the individual members of the Party.'
DIMBLEBY: If you vote against and if you win the
day, you will have humiliated John Smith at his first major hurdle by his own
definition.
EDMONDS: I don't think that that is a very
sensible outcome for anyone and I would have thought a very, very good idea for
everybody who is keen on projecting Labour as a future Government which can
conduct its own internal affairs in a democratic manner, the best thing to do
is to ensure that we settle this matter by going back to first principles - one
person one vote, and settle it as quickly as possible. You see we are arguing
between two different versions of democracy. Both of them are valid in a way,
but what a stupid way to split a Party when we have the Government running
before us and we could give the British people a real vision of a Labour Party
in power which could convince them to vote for it at the next election.
DIMBLEBY: John Edmonds, thank you very much.
EDMONDS: Thank you.
|