Len McCluskey, General Secretary, Unite the Union HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Sarah Montague. Britain's unions are in

the best and worst of times. They finally have the Labour leader of

their dreams. But at a time when their power is under threat as never

before. The government is introducing anti-strike laws that my

guest today thinks are so strict they will take the country back to

the 1930s. He is Len McCluskey, the leader of Britain's biggest union,

Unite. Is Labour's new leader their best and last hope?

Len McCluskey, welcome to hard top. Thank you. Have you finally got the

leader of your dreams? He is certainly a litre committed to the

type of vision and values that I have always believed in, and I think

millions of ordinary British people have believed in. We have got an

individual now lives full of conviction and has a different

message to tell to the one that we have had for so many years. The

anti-austerity position he is putting forward gives hope and

hopefully a better future for people to look at. Although the rules

changed on the way that Labour elected their leader, this is

somebody that you and other union leaders wanted? It was certainly the

individual in the Labour race that we first -- felt best accurately

reflected the views of our members. When he entered the race there was

an excitement, the likes of which I have never seen before in the Labour

Party. I think that was perhaps because people were getting a little

bit fed up with the dullness of what seemed to be on offer from

colleagues. Can you imagine him in Downing Street? Yes, I can. I know

that is a question the media continually put and Labour grandees

who say he has got no chance. We will wait and see. These same

individuals said he had no chance of winning a leadership election. The

reason they say that is because in large part because of polling. 42%

think the Labour Party should change their leader, according to a recent

poll. That means 58% do not. No, it was 31% who do not! The truth of the

matter is Jeremy has been in office just over seven weeks. For a period

running up to the result and seven weeks since he has been pilloried

and attacked from every quarter, from inside the Labour Party, from

the right-wing media, the establishment. So of course people

are being affected by that approach. My view is that a lot more people

are looking and thinking, maybe this straight talking, honest politics

has got something we like. Let me tell you this. Three recent

by-elections, local by-elections in Camberwell, Chorley and Banbury,

Labour won all three. Some won from the Conservatives and one in the

North were the Ukip vote collapsed as people came back to Labour. Let's

wait and see. He only got onto the ballot because some people who did

not ultimately vote for him put their names to get him involved in

the debate. He is there in part because of support from the unions.

He is there because he got 35 Labour MPs. The unions do not have a vote.

Many did not want him to be the leader. That is right. They wanted

him on the ballot paper because they felt a debate was needed. I commend

them for that. Some of them have regretted it. I commend them for

wanting a proper debate in the Labour Party. None of us could

foresee what the outcome would be. It was a tsunami of people wanting

to engage in something different. There are a number of issues where

people think he has got a problem. When he is polled on things, any

area apart from the NHS, he polls in negative territory when you consider

who is satisfied and who is not satisfied. Managing the economy, -27

was his rating. Defence, -34. That should not come as a surprise. For

nearly three decades we have been getting told, day in, day out by the

media, there is no alternative. How many times have we heard that?

Suddenly both Jeremy and John McDonnell have come along and said,

actually, there is an alternative. It is the media's fault, they don't

reflect how the country feel? I am generalising here. Parts of the

media need to look very seriously at themselves. I believe that the

moment they are being made to look rather absurd, especially the

right-wing media, with the constant attacks. He was criticised on

Remembrance Sunday because he was late for a VIP meeting. He was busy

shaking the hands of veterans. I know what the British public would

sooner he was doing. The reality is, do the media reflect the news or

created? The negativity surrounding him for months is bound to have an

impact on people. I say, let the British public decide. They are not

stupid. Give them time. Neither are Labour MPs. David Blunkett, a former

Home Secretary, voice is something that has been said many times. He

makes the point about the young people who have joined the party,

that you can forgive them. They have no meaningful recollection of the

politics of the 1980s. The same cannot be said for the zealots who

have re-emerged to capture the Labour Party. And take it back to a

bygone era. How sad. I remember when David was a young person full of

ideals. Perhaps he has lost those ideals. To attack young people

because they still have them is a reflection of what has happened to

people like David. Is the party going back to a time when, in his

view, it was not helpful? But the reality is, going back where? We are

talking about hundreds of thousands of people who had joined the Labour

Party, young people who are engaged in Labour Party politics in a way

they have never been before. The media constantly telling us that

young people are not interested in politics. What this has shown, young

people rejected the stereotype negative, all look the same, all

sound the same, of the Westminster bubble. What they see in Jeremy is

somebody with something different. That should be embraced. Should be

embraced by Peter Mandelson? He points out only 12% of his voters

were under 24. The bulk were retreaded old Labourites. It is a

good victory but let's put it in perspective. That is utter nonsense.

I seen his interview with HARDtalk and it was full of inaccuracies. It

was full of bitterness, quite well hidden bitterness, because the

ideals he represented have now been rejected by the Labour Party.

Remember Liz Kendall could have been seen as the standard-bearer for what

Lord Mandelson stored for, she got 4.5%. Jeremy got a mandate that no

other leader Peter has had before. -- Labour leader has had before. How

long has he got? There is no time limit. Bring me back two or three

years. We have elections in May next year for a local, London mayoral,

Scottish, Welsh. Yes, but the reality of next May, of course we

will all be looking to see how things develop. Scotland, it took

New Labour over a decade or more to lose Scotland, so to think Jeremy

will regain Scotland in a matter of months is unrealistic. What we need

to look at... Two to three years? Asked me that question then. I

believe he will still be in post them. God willing, his health is

fine. He has a mandate to lead us into the next election. His task is

to put together a cohesive programme that will appeal right across a

broad range. It is a very difficult task. The Tories into juicing

policies at the moment that will reduce the Labour MPs by another 25,

30. To win in 2020, Jeremy's challenges to win back the working

class of Scotland, to make certain that the Ukip threat are pushed

aside. And to win back the south and the Midlands. Is it even doable? It

is a huge task. Whoever was going to be the leader would face that task.

And to keep everybody in? Plenty fear they will be injected. I think

this is scare tactics by people who are simply not facing up to what has

happened. We are on a learning curve at the moment. I have been a member

of the Labour Party for 45 years. The moderates have to get with the

new programme? They have to recognise what has happened within a

run party. He has been in power seven weeks. Give him a little bit

longer! Let's move on to these big changes to when people can strike.

As a result of government proposals, at least # members of a union must

now vote to strike. That is a fair deal, isn't it? -- at least half of

the members in the union. I have written to the Prime Minister. He

has handed it over to the employment Secretary. I am meeting in this

Wednesday. What we have said to the Prime Minister, he has made it clear

in interviews on numerous occasions that his main concern in this bill,

even though the bill embraces a whole host of other very deeply

worrying thing is, his main concern is the low turnout at the industrial

action ballots. I agree with him on that. We have offered him a solution

to overcome that problem. We have said if you get rid of the archaic

method of postal ballots and you give us milder and online digital

and most importantly, secure independent workplace ballots, then

the 50% is not a problem for Unite. If you agree with him on the

thresholds, we have had any number of strikes that wouldn't have met

that? They do not meet it because of postal ballots. We do not know that,

do we? When there was a London bus strike in January, it was voted for

by 16% of people. You are right. That is a great example. When the

strike was called, 95% of our members came out on strike. That was

a mistake? Of course it wasn't. It is the law. You cannot say forget

about the law. It is the law that has caused it. You tell me, and if

you ever get a chance to speak to Sergei Davitt or the Prime Minister,

ask the question, what is the problem with having secure

independent workplace ballots? -- work -based ballots. Unions are

seeking recognition of the employer will not give recognition. The

Central arbitration committee organise a ballot of the workplace

and they utilise workplace ballots or a combination of workplace

ballots and online balloting. That has been going on for years. That

has been going on since 2001. There has never been a single complaint

about bullying or intimidation. We all know that the Business Minister,

when he was talking about the kind of voting you are talking about, he

said there were no practical solutions. Existing systems run

acceptably flawed. Why are they on acceptable? He was quoting the open

rights group. The reality is that his own government body, the Central

arbitration committee, currently utilise workplace ballots and online

ballots. You do not know what that voting system, a different voting

system, would have done to the vote in the recent London Underground

strike? I know it would have produced a much higher turnout. An

86% turnout as opposed to a 26% turnout. You cannot know what those

votes were? It does not matter. If 80% of our members vote not to go on

strike, that is fine. We have at any number of strikes recently which

were not fair. Was it fair to bring London to a halt? I am trying to

point out the weakness of the current system. Because it is postal

votes, historically always produces low turnouts. The Prime Minister has

said he is concerned about that. So am I. I have offered him a solution

to resolve that. And if he does not take it? If this bill does not go

through you have warned of consequences, what? I believe if the

Prime Minister does not take up my proposal, this bill is simply an

attack. He is being disingenuous. It is attempting to turn trade unions

into nothing more than advisory bodies who cannot support their

members. Could that be successful? You have talked about it being

rendered toothless. United is not going to see itself rendered

toothless. That is correct. We will not do that. You will be pushed

outside the law and you will break the law by doing what? We will

support our members. That means that if our members are engaged in strike

ballots, and it does not meet the 50% threshold... You will say

everybody out? That is the position our members will take. We will

support them. This is really important. That will lead to chaos

within our nation. I am appealing, even on your show now, to the Prime

Minister, do not do that to us. I have given you a solution to stop

that chaos from coming about, which everybody will see is fair and open.

Please, please, please pick up the olive branch I am offering. We are

talking about the influence you bear. One of the ways unions have

talked about how they may use their influence is in the EU referendum.

Can you imagine campaigning for the UK to leave the EU? I hope not. Is

it possible? Everybody has to look at it. Get me make this clear. Unite

is pro-Europe. We believe in the values of the business connections,

all of the major manufacturing companies that we deal with. Why

would you consider... Because there is always a balance. The trade union

movement has been a stall ward of the pro-union position for many

years but on the basis there was a balance. -- stole wort. The Prime

Minister is indicating, we will know shortly, what he is trying to

renegotiate. If he is successful on his own terms... In taking away more

worker rights? My union will reconsider its position. One of the

options must be that you are campaigning for the UK to leave? The

Prime Minister and more importantly, the CBI, need to take

this on board. The CBI are in favour of staying in Europe. They need to

tell the Prime Minister that there is no need for him to take away more

worker 's's writes. What is the logic of removing the UK from the

EU, where arguably would have less protection? That is an excellent

question. That view will be weighed in the ballot. You would be prepared

to cut your nose despite your face? I never said that. There are people

saying, even if workers rights are reduced in Europe, how would coming

out of Europe help us? We will weigh the balance. It sounds like bluff.

It is not bluff. My appeal to the CBI is stop sitting on the fence,

tell the Prime Minister not to be attacking workers's writes in

Europe. Let's move to Trident. Unite and Labour in Scotland have voted to

scrap Britain's deterrent, Trident. That is not true, but carry on. How

is that not true? It puts you at odds with your union and the Labour

Party south of the border. What the Scottish Labour Party decided to

do, the policy they passed, was one that said the importance of our

members jobs within the industry was primary. That is Unite's policy. We

are pro-jobs. But ultimately they said they would be in favour of

getting rid of the deterrent. That would be different. It is

sequential. We say that nobody in their right mind, unless they are a

pro Trident, believes in nuclear weapons. We would all love to get

rid of all of them. Do you believe in a deterrent, which is a different

thing? In nuclear deterrent? No. A nuclear deterrent is something that

no sane person in the world would want. The argument is that it is a

deterrent. The argument is, it's about independent deterrence. Here

is the reality of the United position. We said that we are 100%

committed to defending our members's jobs and their

communities. The issue about diversification is something that

has been on the agenda for many years. Unfortunately, consecutive

governments have not treated diversification seriously. We are

talking about 13,000 jobs, according to the local MSPs. We will be

talking about more than that UK wise. Until you can replace those

jobs, do not get rid of Trident, is that what you were saying? We say

that any government interested in looking at diversification has to

prove to us first that they have serious guarantee high-paid, decent

paid jobs, to replace. To replace more than 13,000 jobs. That is

impossible, surely? It certainly seems that way. You wind up in a

position where you are supporting Trident? We are supporting our

members. We are pro-jobs and pro-community. We will for that

position. Whoever is in power, whoever is leader of the Labour

Party, whoever is Prime Minister. You will not even engage on the

issue of nuclear weapons? Unite's position is that we believe we are

signatories to the treaty of nonproliferation. We would like to

reduce nuclear weapons throughout the world. We believe that a

continuation of nuclear weapons damages President Obama. For as long

as we have got it, you will know that the head of the Armed Forces

says that it would worry him the thought that Jeremy Corbyn voiced,

that he would not use it in any circumstances, if that was

translated into power. Sir Christopher blunt, highly respected

Tory MP, put the general in his place. Military should keep out of

political decisions. Sir Christopher blunt was quite right in supporting

Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn is asking if he has breached

constitutional principle. That is down to the powers that be. He has

definitely breached those principles and overstepped the line. I do not

know what the protocol is on that. The moment we allow the military to

enter into the political debate about what should happen to our

defences, we are in serious trouble. Can I come back to the question of

those thousands of jobs dependent on Trident. What would replace them? At

the moment, nothing. Therein lies the conundrum. We have been seeking

to have debates on diversification for a long time. The problem is we

do not run the country. Successive governments are not really

interested in engaging on that debate. The current debate -- the

current government certainly do not want to engage in the debate. The

likelihood is those contracts will be signed. In the meantime we will

defend the jobs of our members and their communities. Len McCluskey,

thank you for coming on hardtop. Thank you. -- HARDtalk.