Paul Kenny - General Secretary, GMB Union HARDtalk

Russian authorities that Mr Snowden should be returned to America to

face trial for leaking national secrets. He has been stranded in

Moscow for more than three weeks. Welcome to HARDtalk. Britain's Labor

Party was created from the trade unions and still gets most of its

money from them. Its leader Ed Miliband, a man who owns his job to

the union, was to sever those ties. My guest is the creator of different

leader of the GMB. What would a change meant for the Labor Party,

the unions, and working class is back working class representation in

Welcome to the top. Is it time for unions to change their relationship

with labour? I think what Ed Miliband has said is what many

people have been thinking for some time. It has not been working

particularly well for the prospect of four trade unions and their

members. Yes. People need to understand the unions origins in the

birth of the party came about right about 1900. Most of the unions were

craft -based organisations. The mass of the country were not in unions.

There came a thing called new Unionism. That meant ordinary

workers, doctors, or very workers formed unions. There was no

representation in the work less and no political voice. At the time it

was a 2-party state. The Liberals and the Conservatives. Stop me if

this sounds familiar. You are talking about 110 years ago. I am.

But it is important to know why those routes were created. Working

people did not have a voice in Parliament. Unions took an approach

at the time they believed in democracy and believes that working

people should have that reputation. Hence the of the Labour Party.

is a reputation that has evolved in the decades since. Unite union was

kicked -- accused of signing up their members to be local party

members without their knowledge, paying the Jews for them, -- and

use, so that they could elect the local campaign to try campaign in

the area. A lot of people say that this is evidence against them. Do

you think what they did was wrong? have not seen the report. And

virtually nobody has yet. There is a multiple speccie mission. If the

rules were broken, the rules exist. If people are signed up without

their permission and that would be wrong. It was a tiny party. The idea

of a union sitting in London, effectively getting people to sign

up with their knowledge, it was a party with a hundred getting another

hundred or might you would be able to manipulate the selection of the

candidate. It is exactly what to talk about. Getting working-class

people to get representation. joined schemes have been around for

years. The problem with unions, including my own, have tried just

about everything you can possibly imagine. Conferences, newsletters,

you name it. The union joined scheme actually means the member can join

the party, and that fee for the first year is paid by the union.

That is absolutely legitimate. We have knocked down in -- we have not

been knocked down in a rush for people to use that opportunity.

Independent targeting, which is what it sounds like, that is not the way

to do it. What you want is to encourage more people to be active

in the party from the trade unions. Are the unions interested in getting

more people with work life experience into Westminster?

Absolutely. Do we have a vested interest? Absolutely. We would never

hide that. Of course we are. The truth of that is, the Labour Party,

has been on representative of working people. That is why it lost

5 million votes. They did not disappear. They did not will die.

They stop understanding what the basic issues were of many working

people. . So the problem was with the party? Not at the unions?

have been quite loyally turning up at party conferences, supporting the

leadership, in many years delivering the money and the vote is, working

hard at election time, and in return, some of the key issues and

some of the big albums we are now facing, issues like social housing,

have just been felt to be addressed. I don't think it is the unions.

saying you are foolish of these years were doing that? I think you

come to a point where you do not think you are going to change the

current system. In 1997, the country was so desperate for change, they

really were. I think the mistake that some of the new Labour people

made was that they think they had swept them into power but they had

really swept the government out. They looked worn out. They looked a

bit seedy. And each collection from there, from 1997 to 2010, the truth

of the matter was that labour lost more and more votes. Many people who

were traditional voters did not vote any more. They were switched off by

the politics. I think it's because they failed to address the key

issues. In the last three years, 81% of labours funding has come from the

unions. Was that a waste of money? It was not a waste of money. Around

the country, there are a lot of efforts that go on a different

areas. A lot of good local politicians do things. What did you

get your money? That is a very good question. I would have to say that

there were times when I could not have given you an answer. What I got

was a lot of aggravation Folau people saying why you continuing to

support the party went they are not continuing to support us. Many

people in the workplace offer from bullying, harassment and fear. We

still have issues with people who support trade unions are

blacklisted. People trying to organise health and safety on

construction sites are blacklisted. You would expect that that would be

an absolute number one issue. But no one should be persecuted for wanting

to protect safety issues. At times it felt like people were embarrassed

about us. We felt like we were the elderly relative who with a little

bit of incontinence or something. We were seen as old-fashioned. We were

played down. We were never played down when it came time for

elections. They did not want to see is that the party, we were not ever

invited to the celebrations. We were certainly always required to deliver

finance and organisation. Bring us up to date. When we had Ed Miliband

saying it is time for a change and I am going to propose, and what he

came up with was this idea, instead of you decided that if we give money

to the Labor Party it would happen automatically, anybody who signed up

your union would have to vote for your affiliation fee and possibly

also as one union does, your political fund fee, to go to the

Labour Party. He is saying that they have to opt in to that rather than

being opting out. Not to listening to you, you are so hacked off with

the party, you're not going to send any of your money there. I later

tell you what I think it is saying. have closer ties with him that I

have. This is what I understood him to say. And I'm not disagreeing with

it. I think its time has come. Someone who joins GMB, they do not

have to join a political fund. We have a political fund. You do not

have to join a political fund, you can opt out. And lots of people do.

Many people, 150,000 in our union, . Out of 600,000. 80,000 people

dropped out of the political fund entirely. Another hundred and 40,000

say that we understand that the union needs a political fund. We

understand you need to campaign for workers rights. You need a political

fund. But we do not want any money to go to Labour Party. How many opt

out of that? I'd say on hundred and 40,000. They pay that out of the

affiliation from. We only affiliate to the party 410,000 out of a

600,000. The total you give to the party is �200 million. You have said

that 90% of that would go as a result of the changes that Ed

Miliband has proposed. So that's 2 million would drop two, 20,000 that

we're talking. It could be 10%. Ed said that he does not want anybody

who -- it is not when the money from people who doesn't vote. So that

would just become part of the political fund. It would not be

donated to the Labour Party. They would see that we -- they would say

that they would have to opt in. I cannot tell you how many would do

it. It may be 10,000, it may be 100,000. There is a big difference

between people saying that we support the unions, but we do not

want to be members of a party. I want to get to, for our audience

we do not need to get into the details of our rules. That is the

proper. People do not understand the rules. It does not sound that you

want to convince people to signup, or whether you want to give the

unions money to this party. It is their money, it is not my money.

GMB union money at the moment, total �2 million, how much do you think

should be going to the Labour Party that you think has been not do

anything for you? I can only guess from the basis of people who opt in,

200,000, 250,000. That is all I can say. So 200,000 from 2 million.They

have to make the transition from supporting to be members. What

happens to the relationship between you and the party? You almost sound

that this has been a long time coming. It almost makes it sound

like this is a split that needed to happen. I would not say it is a

split would set is a different way to doing business will stop you will

be continuing to do business with concussion at as long as the party

is coming forward with progressive issues. Have they been until now? It

has been patchy. It took a long time to get the minimum wage, which every

opposition outtakes claim -- now lays claim to being the father. And

what about Ed Miliband? Is the relationship with him over? This is

a media myth. The Labor Party election for leader is split into an

electoral college. 250 MPs have 1/3 of the vote. 250. And they voted for

his brother. We are talking about the cognitive part of the college.

Party members, 250,000 of them, they also had 1/3. 2.5 million also had

1/3. 250 MPs equals 250... Parliamentary MPs voted for David.

This is supposed to be our talk. will not accept that it was the

union votes that put Ed Miliband into the leadership of the Labor

Party. If less party members had voted for him, he would not have

won. If less MPs had voted for him he would not have won. Not every

trade union supported Ed Miliband. What will happen with Ed Miliband?

Many people in the situation will not believe it was effectively the

union vote because of the way it went. You don't want to listen to

the fact... Some unions campaigned and voted for and to their moments

-- said to their members to vote for David. When you look at how many of

the union vote supported Ed Miliband, that is what gave him the

push ahead. He secured a big victory. What happened to your

relationship with Ed Miliband? happens now? I think he's a decent

man. Don't think he is antiunion. he worth giving money to?

members will have to make that choice. That is what he has said.

What will you advise them? I'm not quite sure what you meant. Will you

say that you urge them to sign up? We will not say that. What will you

say? We will say this is the position, if you wish to support the

Labor Party, you have to opt in to become an associate member of the

Labour Party. You would be recommending they don't do it?

started off by saying the relationship is not working. It is

an individual choice. This idea that some union general secretary says to

vote for one particular person, this is insulting to our members. Believe

me they are more than capable of making up their own mind. Where we

are at the moment, you will know that Bob Crow of the RMT has said,

actually, this isn't working any more. It is almost time to start

setting up our own party. That all the parties look the same now. This

particular political party wants to go down the same fiscal route as the

Tories and the Liberal Democrats. He cannot see any difference between

the three political parties. There is no voice for working people any

more. He says it is time to do with the unions did 120 years ago.

Firstly, his union is not an affiliate to the Labour Party. He

has held that view for a long time. They are not part of the Labour

Party and are not affiliated. They have been organising alternative

political campaigns around Europe and elsewhere. They have have no

impact that I have noticed. We do listen to him, he is unimportant.

They are your words. I think he's a very nice guy and has done a great

job for union. But what he says there's no relevance? He is

questioning the general perception that everybody is unhappy with the

Labour Party. It is up to the party to bring back -- win back millions

of working boats. They have two. If they don't, what happens? They won't

win the election. They can't win an election as millions of people start

voting for them. How much of that is down to money they get from unions?

At the moment the money is vitally important because it balance out --

balances out the money the Conservatives get from big business.

If the union money is lost, then ensure Ed Miliband can make it up

from elsewhere, but then we will have two major political parties

funded by business. He's going to lose that money as things stand?

criteria he set, if I have understood it right, he doesn't want

any money from any trade union member who hasn't voted... Rather

than going around that again, from what you are saying he has a

potential problem if he doesn't get as much money. I think the exchanges

at prime ministers question Time would indicate it won't be this

Parliament. What will it mean for the unions, then? The unions will

have to sharpen up their game. They will have to start focusing on key

issues and switching public opinion. They will have to bring in pressure

on a whole range of politicians. Issues that affect the public. I

judge things about whether the public want more privatisation or

not. I don't think they do. I doubt whether the House of Commons as it

is currently constituted would vote to set up the NHS. I doubt that.

are you going to continue to have any influence? You will have as much

money as you have before. We will have more. And you can use it in a

different way. We will use it in a political campaign way.

individual MPs of any party? union will say we support the Labour

Party. Until that is changed, that is what we will do. Will you change

the rules? It may happen next year. If I sat here now and told you our

conference... Would you like to change the rules? I think it is

inevitable that there would be a strong pull. There will be less

opportunity to resist it. And it will be a call for what? Think it

will call for the union to be not affiliated with any political party.

Then you are free to spend your money on individual MPs? Effectively

we will be free to do that from early next year. Do you think you

will be more powerful as a result? It is not about being more powerful.

Able to influence? Is that getting social change. We stand for it

social change. Do you think you will be more effective? We stand for the

collective good. Hopefully we will be more effective. I think people

have become embarrassed by a link to a trade unions. That is a

disappointment to me. I expect the Conservatives to attack us. It is

just good ground. I don't expect Labour Party MPs to. Do you think

this is dog whistle politics? Is -- it is not a phrase I am using.

Others have used it. Some have described it as a battle. I don't

think if they were sitting there and accusing me -- I don't think they

are sitting there and accusing me. Do you think it is deliberately

chosen as a battle? I think force on. For Ed Miliband.I think he is a

very decent bloke. I think inside he is trying to do the best as he sees

it. I don't doubt there are people in the party who have not recovered

at the country rejected their party. They have forgotten the way that

Labour became an almost unelectable brand. The new party field that

fully. It looked very electable. Come 2010 it had gone. The House of

Commons, the Labour Party and House of Commons, is completely

unrepresented. It is full of political advisers. It is full of

lawyers. You will know that some would say, where you read is back to

political oblivion. Where I live? Whether unions. Ed Miliband has made

an announcement about how he wants to fund the party. If the unions had

said we are going to cut our affiliations by 90%, everyone would

have said you are trying to blackmail the party. That is what

they would have said. They would have said they we were holding a

financial gun over the head of the to get what we want. We have never

done that. Is Ed Miliband gets the changes where he -- that he wants,

where you have an opt in system and you are able to get your members to

opt in, what would be the effect? Literally hundreds of thousands of

trade union members, many of them activists, workplace organisers,

would become active in local labour parties. If there is some few were

about Falkirk and a relatively handful of people join a party

that, but it would be like a Vickers tea party. It would turn the Labour

Party into one that you would laugh, but one not -- not one that Ed

Miliband would. Yeo I think people think trade unions are robots and do

what we say. Is not true. Is 250,000 trade union members, stewards,

activists, joined the Labour Party, then I think it would transform the