This piece is a response to the recent excellent article by Elaine Graham-Leigh of Counterfire on the disappointing results of the Unite Executive Council election in which Sharon Graham’s “Back to the Workplace” slate won 40 seats versus the 18 gained by the Members United coalition of left groups (two seats went to Independents).
Elaine’s article deserves a very wide circulation. In it she makes a series of thoughtful criticisms of Unite’s current general secretary and the sectarian clique that surrounds her.
She says:
“The result has been hailed by some on the left as a commitment to a ‘militant industrial strategy,’ but it is difficult to see it as anything other than a win for right-wing ideas. Graham was elected as General Secretary in 2021 on the promise of withdrawing Unite from political activity, and she has done that. Unite has been conspicuous by its absence from the Palestine movement and even the anti-fascist movement. The union’s position on issues like militarism and climate crisis is broadly that anything that maintains jobs for Unite members is fine by it. This concentration only on ‘bread and butter issues’ was what the right-wing candidate, Gerard Coyne, promised in his attempts to become General Secretary in 2017 and 2021, and his supporters will presumably be pleased by this result.”
Very importantly she starts the article by calling out the Unite General Secretary – as a right-winger.
The politics of Sharon Graham and Gerard Coyne are not a new phenomenon. Karl Marx described it in 1866 when he characterised the English trade unions as being:
“Too exclusively bent on the local and immediate struggles with capital, the trade unions have not yet fully understood their power of acting against the system of wage slavery itself. They therefore kept too much aloof from general social and political movements”. (quote from The International Workingmen’s Association, 1866 Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council)
A few decades later during the epic foundational struggles of the British trade union movement, there emerged a divide between the older conservative unions Marx described in 1866, (which asserted their right to concentrate only on the fight for “bread and butter” issues) – and the masses of workers pouring into unions for unskilled workers. (Amongst them was the dockers’ union, the predecessor (via the TGWU) of Unite.)
Influenced by Marx, Frederick Engels, and others in the organisation the“International Workingmen’s Association” the new “unskilled” unions launched a campaign for the “legal’ eight hour day. The existing conservative trade union leaders, presiding over unions for skilled workers, rejected that call, because, they said that the well-organised workers in their unions could always get what they wanted in their workplaces by withdrawing their skilled labour.
The demand for legislation, however, meant that all workers, skilled or unskilled, organised and unorganised, would benefit from the cut in hours – and turned it into a demand on behalf of the whole working class. The struggle for that demand was a huge milestone in the English working class’s development of the capacity to unite and act on its own behalf – taking it that bit further down the road to exercising its own progressive control over society (AKA socialism).
Graham-Leigh says in her article that Gerard Coyne’s supporters will presumably be pleased by Sharon Graham’s politics and may well vote for her in the upcoming General Secretary election.
They will find themselves collaborating with some strange bedfellows – political groups claiming allegiance to Marxism like the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers’ Party, RS21, and the Alliance for Workers Liberty who are most enthusiastic in support of Sharon Graham and her right wing “bread and butter”, “Back to the workplace” platform. While giving their support (where it counts) in elections to Sharon Graham and her sycophants, these groups occasionally feel the need for a little lip service to the necessity of a wider political struggle for the whole class. But in politics, as in everything, it is not what you say, but what you do that counts – and these groups are campaigning for a win for Graham.
That is why it is interesting to see that the paragraph from Marx above, criticising the conservatism of the early English trade unions, is quoted by Peter Taafe, who was the long-time leader of one of these groups, the Socialist Party. https://www.socialistworld.net/2006/02/01/theory-marx-engels-the-role-of-the-unions/ In a sad betrayal of the Marxism these groups say they represent, their “theory” is completely separate from what they actually do and say on a daily basis. The role of these kinds of groups now, as in Marx’s day, is to sow division and weakness in the workers’ movement.
These groups need to answer (for example) how it is possible to halt the rampant deindustrialisation of the UK, to make the wholesale transition to green industries, or enable workers to control the implementation of AI – however militant you are – by fighting individual workplace by workplace.
The greatest crime of those who limit the unions to “bread and butter” issues is that the political struggle is fundamental to the unity and independence of the working class. Restriction to the industrial struggle alone means the acceptance of forever holding a subordinate place in the world – of never holding the reins of power and always having to negotiate with the bosses for what they are prepared to give. This was clear in 1866 and is ever so much more blindingly clear 170 years later.
And, as Elaine Graham-Leigh says in her article, it is not an either/or situation as Sharon Graham and her supporters pretend – that you are forced to act on either the economic or the political front. Unions can and must act on both.
Sharon Graham’s rejection of “politics” and the union’s intervention on the national and international arena, is a rejection of generations of development toward working class consciousness and independence – by our union and the British working class, of which it is an integral part. It is a dangerous throwback to the limited, conservative trade unionism of what should be a long bygone era.
The rejection of politics is in fact a form of politics – but it is right wing politics.
Most shamefully, under her leadership, our union which played a leading rrole on international solidarity for decades failed to organise in any meaningful way to stop – or even call out – the genocide in Gaza.
The “Back to the Workplace” mantra that Graham opposes to “politics” is a Wizard of Oz creation of smoke and mirrors. Unite has always been “In the workplace”. We have always been a militant fighting back union that has generally taken more industrial action than most other unions. The wave of strikes following Graham’s election coincided with the Cost of Living/hyperinflation crisis and had little or nothing to do with her leadership. Other unions, like the RCN, RCM and the BMA (who had barely ever taken action in their histories) took as much or more than Unite during this period.
After using our Organising Department as her de-facto electoral machine since around 2016 she has left it washed up and rudderless. Despite the vast resources it has swallowed up, we see no gains, no new members and no new membership growth in existing workplaces.
In the meantime,no audited accounts have been produced for the membership, and Graham has never made public what salary she is drawing down.
NB: There have been many ups and downs in the long journey of the working class to find its independence through its own party. One huge step forward was the trade unions’ change from support for the Liberals to the Labour party in 1906. Today, amid growing anger over Labour’s failure to produce the radical policies necessary to solve the current problems of workers, there would appear to be no obvious fully-formed alternative.
Even more right wing politics
Graham’s statement on the local election results of 7 May is a horrifying master class in how a working class leader can evade all responsibility for the future of the class.
See her election statement here.
She writes about Labour’s refusal to address current economic problems and that it must “change or die” but does not propose anything that Unite members can do to solve the problem of Labour’s awfulness – let alone make any proposal as to what can replace it as the political representation of the working class.
She makes no mention of the Corbyn project in which our union played a leading role – a genuine working-class effort to change the party’s direction to socialism. The failure of that project was not inevitable –but the result of a concerted and savage campaign of dirty tricks from the Labour right wing assisted by the media (and quite possibly some other darker forces). As far as she was concerned, that was not a “Bread and butter”, “Back to the workplace” issue. She has gone on record to say she rejects all interference by our union in “Westminster politics”. How then does she think this Labour Party, in hock to the right wing and its virulent hatred and successful purges of every vestige of socialism, will be able to change? Will it be through Wes Streeting making winsome speeches about workers’ rights, or Andy Burnham making less winsome ones about his agreement with Rachel Reeves “fiscal rules” in an effort to placate the bond markets?
From what Graham says she does not believe that Labour will come up with the goods … In which case, where does she think workers will find their political representation? Is she saying workers don’t need their own party (taking us back to pre-1900) or does she support the Socialist Party proposal “… for a new workers’ party, on a socialist programme.”? No matter how it is dressed up, that would be the Socialist Party, putting the interests of its sect above that of the class.
The glaring omission from her election statement is any principled stand against the imminent dangers of a Reform General Election victory.
This follows a consistent blurring of the line between the interests of Unite members and the very sinister interests backing Reform – notably when senior Unite officials marched with Andrea Jenkyns, the Reform UK Mayor for Greater Lincolnshire against the closure of Lindsey oil refinery in July 2025, and again when Unite officers communicated with Birmingham Reform councillor candidates before 7 May. Real leadership requires the constant exposure of the far-right interests that support and finance Reform, and the danger that political current poses to our class. Otherwise we sow nothing but confusion.
However – naked opportunism prevails. Graham and her acolytes will do everything possible to avoid losing any votes from a confrontation with those Unite members who channel their fury over the fact that capitalism increasingly provides no future for our class into a vote for Reform (and now “Restore”).
Only principled outspoken opposition from working class leaders can look to turn this tide – combined with a serious campaign to reindustrialise (in workers’ interests and under workers’ control) the impoverished swathes of the UK which are the breeding ground of the far-right. This would of course require a change in government policy – and thus political representation.
In this period of enormous peril for the class, Sharon Graham and her team have chosen to abandon it – in the interests of holding on to power and getting some nice jobs with very nice salaries.
Combating Reform (and Restore and the ever-increasing number of fascist look-alike parties) requires our union to drive forward the Green New Deal in order to reindustrialise those rust belt regions which are the stamping grounds of Farage, Yaxley Lennon et al. Graham will not do this for fear of losing the electoral support of fossil fuel industry members. While she kowtows to their short-termism (we must keep these workplaces open or lose our jobs) she is incapable of providing a way forward for them (at workplaces such as Grangemouth and Lindsey Oil Refineries, Port Talbot steelworks). Without a political platform consisting of a real fight for a just transition, demanding well-paid unionised jobs, Unite is condemned to irrelevance, unable to defend the jobs of existing members and lacking the vision and strategies to rebuild the union in new green industries.
For all of the above reasons Unite members must nominate and vote for SIMON DUBBINS in the upcoming General Secretary election.
He pledges to put Unite in the fight to stop Reform and the far-right while tackling the cost of living crisis.
He will ensure Unite’s ability to act independently in the interests of workers on the national and international arenas.
As Unite’s International Director he has led the union’s solidarity work over decades with Palestine, Ukraine and a host of other countries.
He is promising:
- A fighting industrial strategy, to protect jobs, raise pay so workers do not pay for Trump’s wars.
- A new start for our union, ending tired internal divisions by reuniting our union.
- Exposing Reform’s real agenda and voting record on workers rights
- To only support politicians who support us.
- Open the books: Ending corruption and cronyism in our union.
- NOMINATE AND VOTE FOR SIMON DUBBINS IN THE UNITE GENERAL SECRETARY ELECTION
