Trade unions seek double standards in fight against BNP

2008 November 2
by Oliver Cooper

Looks like the labour cartels trade unionists aren’t content with getting all the special favours Labour have already thrown at them - but they want even more!  Now, they want to be able to exclude BNP members from joining:

Trade unions want the right under UK law to expel British National Party activists - and deny them membership - as part of Labour plans to check the electoral advance of the far right.

“To check the electoral advance of the far right”?  Wtf?!  So it’s just a bare-faced, un-sugar-coated attempt to distort democracy and prevent a rival party from taking their votes?  I really wouldn’t have expected any more from this government.  These rules were introduced to stop unionists from excluding Conservative Party members; by breaching them for one party, one makes it easy for the unionists to use the same principle to extend it to all parties, and turn our workplaces into places where the only political disagreements are between Trotskyites and Stalinists.

We are as opposed to the BNP as we could possibly be.  The BNP’s social policies are fascistic, their economic policies are neo-communist, and their outlook is bigoted beyond the pale.  They seek state involvement in every facet of a citizen’s life.  They are exactly what we oppose - and, of course, they are exactly what the left-wing supports.  The only difference is that the ‘far-left’ supports discrimination by class, whilst the ‘far-right’ supports discrimination by race.  You say tomayto, they say tomahto.

However, the best way to deal with them is to beat them: something that Labour seem wholly unable to do.  The similarities between the ‘far-left’ and the ‘far-right’ is the reason that the BNP gets most of its votes from the same ‘working class’ constituency as traditional left-wing parties.  That’s why, standing only two candidates in Three Rivers this May, the district I grew up in, one BNP candidate won a former Labour safe seat, and the other narrowly lost to Kerron Cross: Labour’s then-group leader, former PPC, and the blogger who calls himself ‘The Voice of the Delectable Left’.  That’s why there’s now a BNP member of the GLA.  That’s why the BNP beat Labour in Henley.

The fact that they can’t beat them is alarming, but says more about the unpopularity of this government than the popularity of the BNP.  The fact that Labour, and the far-left trade unionist movement, want to use government powers to discriminate against them and to ensure Labour victories in the poor communities let down by class warriors, says more about the undemocratic nature of this government.

It also says a lot about the principles of the trade unions that they’re willing to sacrifice democracy to prop up such an abysmally abusive and totalitarian government.  For shame…

2 Comments leave one →
2008 November 2

Shouldn’t libertarians be supporting any and all steps towards greater freedom of association? Yes, unions currently enjoy certain legal privileges, but wouldn’t it be more logical to argue for the removal of these privileges rather than the restriction of their freedoms?

2008 November 2

Thanks for asking that important question. Yes, I would agree entirely, and yearn to see the day when trade unions and clubs and mutual societies and, yes, even companies could be free to do as they please. But that is not what the legislation is about.

Under the proposed legislation, it would still be illegal for employers to discriminate between people based on trade union membership. Indeed, because, under usual circumstances, it is illegal to fire a trade union member for striking (that is, breaching their contracts), whereas a non-member has no such protection, it is a perfect logical thing on which to base employment decisions. Which political party one supports, on the other hand, is barely a logical reason to discriminate against potential trade union members.

I don’t claim that illogicalities shouldn’t exist. They are a natural part of the market process. However, this one, I will wager, comes about because trade unions have an enshrined position in law, in that they affect the fundamentals of the employment process, but cannot play a part in the employer’s decision. That, surely, is the greater distortion, and gives the unions leverage from which to move to complete irrelevances: like making political levies and discriminating based on political allegiances.

And, so, to return to your question, the government should remove the privileges that political parties have under the current trade union regulations, but only on condition that the government removes the privileges that trade unions have under the same laws in the same breath. That is the fully libertarian response.

My moral indignation at this, however, comes from the fact that the proposer isn’t even attempting to portray this as a freedom of association issue, but merely as a means to stop the electoral advance of their rivals. That’s despotism.

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS