:00:11. > :00:18.Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Sarah Montague. Britain's unions are in
:00:19. > :00:23.the best and worst of times. They finally have the Labour leader of
:00:24. > :00:28.their dreams. But at a time when their power is under threat as never
:00:29. > :00:32.before. The government is introducing anti-strike laws that my
:00:33. > :00:39.guest today thinks are so strict they will take the country back to
:00:40. > :00:45.the 1930s. He is Len McCluskey, the leader of Britain's biggest union,
:00:46. > :01:10.Unite. Is Labour's new leader their best and last hope?
:01:11. > :01:20.Len McCluskey, welcome to hard top. Thank you. Have you finally got the
:01:21. > :01:24.leader of your dreams? He is certainly a litre committed to the
:01:25. > :01:29.type of vision and values that I have always believed in, and I think
:01:30. > :01:33.millions of ordinary British people have believed in. We have got an
:01:34. > :01:37.individual now lives full of conviction and has a different
:01:38. > :01:43.message to tell to the one that we have had for so many years. The
:01:44. > :01:46.anti-austerity position he is putting forward gives hope and
:01:47. > :01:51.hopefully a better future for people to look at. Although the rules
:01:52. > :01:55.changed on the way that Labour elected their leader, this is
:01:56. > :02:02.somebody that you and other union leaders wanted? It was certainly the
:02:03. > :02:08.individual in the Labour race that we first -- felt best accurately
:02:09. > :02:12.reflected the views of our members. When he entered the race there was
:02:13. > :02:16.an excitement, the likes of which I have never seen before in the Labour
:02:17. > :02:20.Party. I think that was perhaps because people were getting a little
:02:21. > :02:27.bit fed up with the dullness of what seemed to be on offer from
:02:28. > :02:33.colleagues. Can you imagine him in Downing Street? Yes, I can. I know
:02:34. > :02:37.that is a question the media continually put and Labour grandees
:02:38. > :02:40.who say he has got no chance. We will wait and see. These same
:02:41. > :02:45.individuals said he had no chance of winning a leadership election. The
:02:46. > :02:53.reason they say that is because in large part because of polling. 42%
:02:54. > :03:05.think the Labour Party should change their leader, according to a recent
:03:06. > :03:12.poll. That means 58% do not. No, it was 31% who do not! The truth of the
:03:13. > :03:17.matter is Jeremy has been in office just over seven weeks. For a period
:03:18. > :03:22.running up to the result and seven weeks since he has been pilloried
:03:23. > :03:25.and attacked from every quarter, from inside the Labour Party, from
:03:26. > :03:32.the right-wing media, the establishment. So of course people
:03:33. > :03:37.are being affected by that approach. My view is that a lot more people
:03:38. > :03:40.are looking and thinking, maybe this straight talking, honest politics
:03:41. > :03:47.has got something we like. Let me tell you this. Three recent
:03:48. > :03:53.by-elections, local by-elections in Camberwell, Chorley and Banbury,
:03:54. > :03:58.Labour won all three. Some won from the Conservatives and one in the
:03:59. > :04:04.North were the Ukip vote collapsed as people came back to Labour. Let's
:04:05. > :04:08.wait and see. He only got onto the ballot because some people who did
:04:09. > :04:12.not ultimately vote for him put their names to get him involved in
:04:13. > :04:17.the debate. He is there in part because of support from the unions.
:04:18. > :04:25.He is there because he got 35 Labour MPs. The unions do not have a vote.
:04:26. > :04:29.Many did not want him to be the leader. That is right. They wanted
:04:30. > :04:35.him on the ballot paper because they felt a debate was needed. I commend
:04:36. > :04:39.them for that. Some of them have regretted it. I commend them for
:04:40. > :04:45.wanting a proper debate in the Labour Party. None of us could
:04:46. > :04:50.foresee what the outcome would be. It was a tsunami of people wanting
:04:51. > :04:54.to engage in something different. There are a number of issues where
:04:55. > :05:00.people think he has got a problem. When he is polled on things, any
:05:01. > :05:05.area apart from the NHS, he polls in negative territory when you consider
:05:06. > :05:14.who is satisfied and who is not satisfied. Managing the economy, -27
:05:15. > :05:18.was his rating. Defence, -34. That should not come as a surprise. For
:05:19. > :05:24.nearly three decades we have been getting told, day in, day out by the
:05:25. > :05:29.media, there is no alternative. How many times have we heard that?
:05:30. > :05:34.Suddenly both Jeremy and John McDonnell have come along and said,
:05:35. > :05:42.actually, there is an alternative. It is the media's fault, they don't
:05:43. > :05:47.reflect how the country feel? I am generalising here. Parts of the
:05:48. > :05:52.media need to look very seriously at themselves. I believe that the
:05:53. > :05:56.moment they are being made to look rather absurd, especially the
:05:57. > :05:59.right-wing media, with the constant attacks. He was criticised on
:06:00. > :06:06.Remembrance Sunday because he was late for a VIP meeting. He was busy
:06:07. > :06:12.shaking the hands of veterans. I know what the British public would
:06:13. > :06:16.sooner he was doing. The reality is, do the media reflect the news or
:06:17. > :06:23.created? The negativity surrounding him for months is bound to have an
:06:24. > :06:29.impact on people. I say, let the British public decide. They are not
:06:30. > :06:33.stupid. Give them time. Neither are Labour MPs. David Blunkett, a former
:06:34. > :06:36.Home Secretary, voice is something that has been said many times. He
:06:37. > :06:42.makes the point about the young people who have joined the party,
:06:43. > :06:47.that you can forgive them. They have no meaningful recollection of the
:06:48. > :06:50.politics of the 1980s. The same cannot be said for the zealots who
:06:51. > :06:57.have re-emerged to capture the Labour Party. And take it back to a
:06:58. > :07:01.bygone era. How sad. I remember when David was a young person full of
:07:02. > :07:05.ideals. Perhaps he has lost those ideals. To attack young people
:07:06. > :07:09.because they still have them is a reflection of what has happened to
:07:10. > :07:15.people like David. Is the party going back to a time when, in his
:07:16. > :07:19.view, it was not helpful? But the reality is, going back where? We are
:07:20. > :07:23.talking about hundreds of thousands of people who had joined the Labour
:07:24. > :07:27.Party, young people who are engaged in Labour Party politics in a way
:07:28. > :07:31.they have never been before. The media constantly telling us that
:07:32. > :07:37.young people are not interested in politics. What this has shown, young
:07:38. > :07:42.people rejected the stereotype negative, all look the same, all
:07:43. > :07:47.sound the same, of the Westminster bubble. What they see in Jeremy is
:07:48. > :07:53.somebody with something different. That should be embraced. Should be
:07:54. > :07:58.embraced by Peter Mandelson? He points out only 12% of his voters
:07:59. > :08:05.were under 24. The bulk were retreaded old Labourites. It is a
:08:06. > :08:09.good victory but let's put it in perspective. That is utter nonsense.
:08:10. > :08:13.I seen his interview with HARDtalk and it was full of inaccuracies. It
:08:14. > :08:20.was full of bitterness, quite well hidden bitterness, because the
:08:21. > :08:26.ideals he represented have now been rejected by the Labour Party.
:08:27. > :08:29.Remember Liz Kendall could have been seen as the standard-bearer for what
:08:30. > :08:37.Lord Mandelson stored for, she got 4.5%. Jeremy got a mandate that no
:08:38. > :08:45.other leader Peter has had before. -- Labour leader has had before. How
:08:46. > :08:55.long has he got? There is no time limit. Bring me back two or three
:08:56. > :09:01.years. We have elections in May next year for a local, London mayoral,
:09:02. > :09:04.Scottish, Welsh. Yes, but the reality of next May, of course we
:09:05. > :09:09.will all be looking to see how things develop. Scotland, it took
:09:10. > :09:15.New Labour over a decade or more to lose Scotland, so to think Jeremy
:09:16. > :09:22.will regain Scotland in a matter of months is unrealistic. What we need
:09:23. > :09:29.to look at... Two to three years? Asked me that question then. I
:09:30. > :09:34.believe he will still be in post them. God willing, his health is
:09:35. > :09:39.fine. He has a mandate to lead us into the next election. His task is
:09:40. > :09:42.to put together a cohesive programme that will appeal right across a
:09:43. > :09:47.broad range. It is a very difficult task. The Tories into juicing
:09:48. > :09:56.policies at the moment that will reduce the Labour MPs by another 25,
:09:57. > :10:01.30. To win in 2020, Jeremy's challenges to win back the working
:10:02. > :10:06.class of Scotland, to make certain that the Ukip threat are pushed
:10:07. > :10:16.aside. And to win back the south and the Midlands. Is it even doable? It
:10:17. > :10:22.is a huge task. Whoever was going to be the leader would face that task.
:10:23. > :10:29.And to keep everybody in? Plenty fear they will be injected. I think
:10:30. > :10:34.this is scare tactics by people who are simply not facing up to what has
:10:35. > :10:40.happened. We are on a learning curve at the moment. I have been a member
:10:41. > :10:44.of the Labour Party for 45 years. The moderates have to get with the
:10:45. > :10:52.new programme? They have to recognise what has happened within a
:10:53. > :10:58.run party. He has been in power seven weeks. Give him a little bit
:10:59. > :11:02.longer! Let's move on to these big changes to when people can strike.
:11:03. > :11:08.As a result of government proposals, at least # members of a union must
:11:09. > :11:17.now vote to strike. That is a fair deal, isn't it? -- at least half of
:11:18. > :11:23.the members in the union. I have written to the Prime Minister. He
:11:24. > :11:26.has handed it over to the employment Secretary. I am meeting in this
:11:27. > :11:32.Wednesday. What we have said to the Prime Minister, he has made it clear
:11:33. > :11:35.in interviews on numerous occasions that his main concern in this bill,
:11:36. > :11:40.even though the bill embraces a whole host of other very deeply
:11:41. > :11:47.worrying thing is, his main concern is the low turnout at the industrial
:11:48. > :11:51.action ballots. I agree with him on that. We have offered him a solution
:11:52. > :11:57.to overcome that problem. We have said if you get rid of the archaic
:11:58. > :12:02.method of postal ballots and you give us milder and online digital
:12:03. > :12:08.and most importantly, secure independent workplace ballots, then
:12:09. > :12:12.the 50% is not a problem for Unite. If you agree with him on the
:12:13. > :12:20.thresholds, we have had any number of strikes that wouldn't have met
:12:21. > :12:26.that? They do not meet it because of postal ballots. We do not know that,
:12:27. > :12:33.do we? When there was a London bus strike in January, it was voted for
:12:34. > :12:37.by 16% of people. You are right. That is a great example. When the
:12:38. > :12:44.strike was called, 95% of our members came out on strike. That was
:12:45. > :12:53.a mistake? Of course it wasn't. It is the law. You cannot say forget
:12:54. > :12:59.about the law. It is the law that has caused it. You tell me, and if
:13:00. > :13:05.you ever get a chance to speak to Sergei Davitt or the Prime Minister,
:13:06. > :13:10.ask the question, what is the problem with having secure
:13:11. > :13:18.independent workplace ballots? -- work -based ballots. Unions are
:13:19. > :13:21.seeking recognition of the employer will not give recognition. The
:13:22. > :13:27.Central arbitration committee organise a ballot of the workplace
:13:28. > :13:30.and they utilise workplace ballots or a combination of workplace
:13:31. > :13:35.ballots and online balloting. That has been going on for years. That
:13:36. > :13:42.has been going on since 2001. There has never been a single complaint
:13:43. > :13:45.about bullying or intimidation. We all know that the Business Minister,
:13:46. > :13:49.when he was talking about the kind of voting you are talking about, he
:13:50. > :13:57.said there were no practical solutions. Existing systems run
:13:58. > :14:03.acceptably flawed. Why are they on acceptable? He was quoting the open
:14:04. > :14:09.rights group. The reality is that his own government body, the Central
:14:10. > :14:15.arbitration committee, currently utilise workplace ballots and online
:14:16. > :14:19.ballots. You do not know what that voting system, a different voting
:14:20. > :14:27.system, would have done to the vote in the recent London Underground
:14:28. > :14:31.strike? I know it would have produced a much higher turnout. An
:14:32. > :14:40.86% turnout as opposed to a 26% turnout. You cannot know what those
:14:41. > :14:45.votes were? It does not matter. If 80% of our members vote not to go on
:14:46. > :14:50.strike, that is fine. We have at any number of strikes recently which
:14:51. > :14:57.were not fair. Was it fair to bring London to a halt? I am trying to
:14:58. > :15:04.point out the weakness of the current system. Because it is postal
:15:05. > :15:10.votes, historically always produces low turnouts. The Prime Minister has
:15:11. > :15:15.said he is concerned about that. So am I. I have offered him a solution
:15:16. > :15:20.to resolve that. And if he does not take it? If this bill does not go
:15:21. > :15:29.through you have warned of consequences, what? I believe if the
:15:30. > :15:35.Prime Minister does not take up my proposal, this bill is simply an
:15:36. > :15:39.attack. He is being disingenuous. It is attempting to turn trade unions
:15:40. > :15:45.into nothing more than advisory bodies who cannot support their
:15:46. > :15:49.members. Could that be successful? You have talked about it being
:15:50. > :15:55.rendered toothless. United is not going to see itself rendered
:15:56. > :16:02.toothless. That is correct. We will not do that. You will be pushed
:16:03. > :16:08.outside the law and you will break the law by doing what? We will
:16:09. > :16:13.support our members. That means that if our members are engaged in strike
:16:14. > :16:19.ballots, and it does not meet the 50% threshold... You will say
:16:20. > :16:25.everybody out? That is the position our members will take. We will
:16:26. > :16:30.support them. This is really important. That will lead to chaos
:16:31. > :16:35.within our nation. I am appealing, even on your show now, to the Prime
:16:36. > :16:39.Minister, do not do that to us. I have given you a solution to stop
:16:40. > :16:45.that chaos from coming about, which everybody will see is fair and open.
:16:46. > :16:49.Please, please, please pick up the olive branch I am offering. We are
:16:50. > :16:56.talking about the influence you bear. One of the ways unions have
:16:57. > :17:03.talked about how they may use their influence is in the EU referendum.
:17:04. > :17:11.Can you imagine campaigning for the UK to leave the EU? I hope not. Is
:17:12. > :17:17.it possible? Everybody has to look at it. Get me make this clear. Unite
:17:18. > :17:22.is pro-Europe. We believe in the values of the business connections,
:17:23. > :17:29.all of the major manufacturing companies that we deal with. Why
:17:30. > :17:34.would you consider... Because there is always a balance. The trade union
:17:35. > :17:41.movement has been a stall ward of the pro-union position for many
:17:42. > :17:48.years but on the basis there was a balance. -- stole wort. The Prime
:17:49. > :17:52.Minister is indicating, we will know shortly, what he is trying to
:17:53. > :17:59.renegotiate. If he is successful on his own terms... In taking away more
:18:00. > :18:08.worker rights? My union will reconsider its position. One of the
:18:09. > :18:12.options must be that you are campaigning for the UK to leave? The
:18:13. > :18:18.Prime Minister and more importantly, the CBI, need to take
:18:19. > :18:22.this on board. The CBI are in favour of staying in Europe. They need to
:18:23. > :18:27.tell the Prime Minister that there is no need for him to take away more
:18:28. > :18:35.worker 's's writes. What is the logic of removing the UK from the
:18:36. > :18:39.EU, where arguably would have less protection? That is an excellent
:18:40. > :18:46.question. That view will be weighed in the ballot. You would be prepared
:18:47. > :18:51.to cut your nose despite your face? I never said that. There are people
:18:52. > :18:59.saying, even if workers rights are reduced in Europe, how would coming
:19:00. > :19:09.out of Europe help us? We will weigh the balance. It sounds like bluff.
:19:10. > :19:12.It is not bluff. My appeal to the CBI is stop sitting on the fence,
:19:13. > :19:19.tell the Prime Minister not to be attacking workers's writes in
:19:20. > :19:23.Europe. Let's move to Trident. Unite and Labour in Scotland have voted to
:19:24. > :19:33.scrap Britain's deterrent, Trident. That is not true, but carry on. How
:19:34. > :19:38.is that not true? It puts you at odds with your union and the Labour
:19:39. > :19:44.Party south of the border. What the Scottish Labour Party decided to
:19:45. > :19:46.do, the policy they passed, was one that said the importance of our
:19:47. > :19:55.members jobs within the industry was primary. That is Unite's policy. We
:19:56. > :20:00.are pro-jobs. But ultimately they said they would be in favour of
:20:01. > :20:08.getting rid of the deterrent. That would be different. It is
:20:09. > :20:11.sequential. We say that nobody in their right mind, unless they are a
:20:12. > :20:18.pro Trident, believes in nuclear weapons. We would all love to get
:20:19. > :20:25.rid of all of them. Do you believe in a deterrent, which is a different
:20:26. > :20:29.thing? In nuclear deterrent? No. A nuclear deterrent is something that
:20:30. > :20:39.no sane person in the world would want. The argument is that it is a
:20:40. > :20:45.deterrent. The argument is, it's about independent deterrence. Here
:20:46. > :20:52.is the reality of the United position. We said that we are 100%
:20:53. > :20:56.committed to defending our members's jobs and their
:20:57. > :20:58.communities. The issue about diversification is something that
:20:59. > :21:05.has been on the agenda for many years. Unfortunately, consecutive
:21:06. > :21:09.governments have not treated diversification seriously. We are
:21:10. > :21:15.talking about 13,000 jobs, according to the local MSPs. We will be
:21:16. > :21:20.talking about more than that UK wise. Until you can replace those
:21:21. > :21:26.jobs, do not get rid of Trident, is that what you were saying? We say
:21:27. > :21:29.that any government interested in looking at diversification has to
:21:30. > :21:37.prove to us first that they have serious guarantee high-paid, decent
:21:38. > :21:46.paid jobs, to replace. To replace more than 13,000 jobs. That is
:21:47. > :21:50.impossible, surely? It certainly seems that way. You wind up in a
:21:51. > :21:56.position where you are supporting Trident? We are supporting our
:21:57. > :22:01.members. We are pro-jobs and pro-community. We will for that
:22:02. > :22:08.position. Whoever is in power, whoever is leader of the Labour
:22:09. > :22:13.Party, whoever is Prime Minister. You will not even engage on the
:22:14. > :22:19.issue of nuclear weapons? Unite's position is that we believe we are
:22:20. > :22:22.signatories to the treaty of nonproliferation. We would like to
:22:23. > :22:30.reduce nuclear weapons throughout the world. We believe that a
:22:31. > :22:35.continuation of nuclear weapons damages President Obama. For as long
:22:36. > :22:40.as we have got it, you will know that the head of the Armed Forces
:22:41. > :22:46.says that it would worry him the thought that Jeremy Corbyn voiced,
:22:47. > :22:50.that he would not use it in any circumstances, if that was
:22:51. > :22:56.translated into power. Sir Christopher blunt, highly respected
:22:57. > :23:00.Tory MP, put the general in his place. Military should keep out of
:23:01. > :23:07.political decisions. Sir Christopher blunt was quite right in supporting
:23:08. > :23:10.Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn is asking if he has breached
:23:11. > :23:15.constitutional principle. That is down to the powers that be. He has
:23:16. > :23:19.definitely breached those principles and overstepped the line. I do not
:23:20. > :23:23.know what the protocol is on that. The moment we allow the military to
:23:24. > :23:27.enter into the political debate about what should happen to our
:23:28. > :23:31.defences, we are in serious trouble. Can I come back to the question of
:23:32. > :23:39.those thousands of jobs dependent on Trident. What would replace them? At
:23:40. > :23:43.the moment, nothing. Therein lies the conundrum. We have been seeking
:23:44. > :23:47.to have debates on diversification for a long time. The problem is we
:23:48. > :23:51.do not run the country. Successive governments are not really
:23:52. > :23:55.interested in engaging on that debate. The current debate -- the
:23:56. > :24:03.current government certainly do not want to engage in the debate. The
:24:04. > :24:08.likelihood is those contracts will be signed. In the meantime we will
:24:09. > :24:11.defend the jobs of our members and their communities. Len McCluskey,
:24:12. > :24:17.thank you for coming on hardtop. Thank you. -- HARDtalk.