Debate on the Unite union general secretary election

In the 2021 Unite the Union General Secretary election the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, after much debate, called for a critical vote for Sharon Graham.

Some of us argued for abstention. There was obviously no question of supporting Gerard Coyne, the right-wing candidate in the election. But while there were certainly differences between the two other candidates – Sharon Graham and Steve Turner – some of us argued that neither of them, albeit for different reasons, merited endorsement and support.

Voting is about to get underway for the 2026 General Secretary election. The ballot runs from 14 July to 11 August, with the official result announced on 14 August 2026. There are two candidates on the ballot paper: Simon Dubbins and Sharon Graham. This time, the case for supporting neither candidate is even more clear-cut.

Neither Dubbins nor Graham are rank-and-file candidates. Neither of them have pledged to take a worker’s wage if elected/re-elected.

Dubbins is Unite’s International Director, a post he has held since 2008. Graham was originally an official with the TGWU, and then became a Unite official after the union’s creation in 2007. From 2016 onwards she headed Unite’s Organising Department, before being elected as General Secretary in 2021.

On paper, Dubbins’ election manifesto has much to commend it. He promises an effective industrial strategy, a coherent political strategy, a strategy to tackle the growth of the far right, initiatives to build more support for migrant workers, an end to corruption in Unite, and strengthening lay-member democracy.

His manifesto attacks Graham’s powerbase in Unite – the union’s Organising Department: “We will reunite organising with the rest of the union. Organisers are not a ‘rent a mob’ army of flag wavers, which is how they are currently deployed. It cannot go on. Organising is a skill, not a performance.”

The manifesto also pledges “an immediate end to union-busting of staff and officers by senior managers of Unite … an end to the toxic divisions which hold our union back … an end to the poisonous internal divisions which have been created.”

But the major force responsible for the “toxic divisions” and “poisonous internal divisions” in question are Dubbins’ own backers. He is the candidate of the United Left (UL), latterly sometimes trading under the name of Members United.

Following Graham’s defeat of the UL candidate (Steve Turner) in the 2021 General Secretary election, UL members on Unite’s constitutional committees, above all at the level of the national Executive Council (EC), engaged in a factional form of trench warfare against Graham.

This reached a climax in March of last year, when the UL faction attempted to oust the EC chairperson. Having failed to achieve anywhere near the two-thirds majority needed to do so, it unsuccessfully applied for “injunctive relief” to the High Court – and then sent the bill for its legal costs to Unite.

Graham’s supporters have certainly contributed to the “toxic divisions” in Unite. But if Dubbins was serious about putting an end to the toxicity, he would denounce the actions of the UL rather than stand as their candidate.

The same applies to Dubbins’ promise to “end corruption” in Unite.

Allegations of corruption relate to the unexplained explosion in the costs charged to Unite for the Birmingham hotel and conference centre, and to the contracts issued by Unite for the provision of services for its members.

But, again, it has been the UL, Dubbins’ own backers, who have consistently blocked transparency and accountability about these matters. At the infamous Unite EC meeting of January 2021, UL members voted unanimously not to investigate these issues.

(A number of those who voted to give McCluskey and Beckett a clean bill of health subsequently backed Graham in the 2021 election – denouncing the actions which they had only recently voted to cover up. Their hypocrisy did not prevent them from being welcomed into the Graham camp.)

Dubbins promises accountability – but exempts his own backers from that demand. He promotes a narrative in which everything was fine until Graham’s election as General Secretary, and then the union collapsed into internal strife.

The potted biography of Dubbins on his campaign website makes a heroic effort to give the impression that workplace struggles are his daily bread-and-butter. But it fails to do so miserably.

The biography makes great play of Dubbins’ main – in fact, sole – claim to fame: his arrest on a picket line during the Wapping printworkers dispute in 1986, forty years ago. (Dubbins’ dad was the then General Secretary of the NGA, the printworkers union, which probably accounts for his presence on the picket line.)

Thereafter, the reader searches in vain for any example of Dubbin’s involvement in trade union militancy. Because no such examples exist. The passing reference to Dubbins’ involvement in the little-known and short-lived Mayr-Meinhof campaign of 2012, for example, smacks of desperation.

Although it is not decisive, one of Dubbins’ weakest points is what should be his strongest – his boast that as Unite International Director he has “kept our union at the forefront of international solidarity work.”

Dubbins’ “internationalism” is largely restricted to the core themes of Morning Star “internationalism”: Cuba, Venezuala, Colombia, and Israel-Palestine, with the occasional foray into Kurdistan and South Africa.

Appealing to some of the worst elements in Unite, Dubbins’ election manifesto highlights Israel-Palestine. He hopes to cash in on ultra-antizionist criticisms of Graham for being too ‘soft’ on Israel-Palestine.

But Unite’s policy of support for Ukraine and Ukrainian trade unions has remained a dead letter for the union’s International Director. Perhaps even worse, Dubbins boasts of having “developed and led the ‘Brexit on our terms’ strategy” – as if there could ever have been a workers’ Brexit.

Dubbins highlights his “support for workers in Eastern Europe whose unions were being hijacked by the far right.” What this refers to is a mystery. By contrast, there is no mention of Dubbins fighting for trade union freedoms in the dying days of Stalinist oppression. (According to his biography, he entered the scene of political activity in 1986.)

Dubbins is the candidate backed by the Canary/Skawkbox website. He cannot be held responsible for that. But anyone backed by such a demented outfit really should ask themselves where they went wrong in life.

The sales pitch of Graham’s election manifesto is that another term of office will allow her to drive forward – and complete – the changes implemented since her election in 2021:

“Back to the workplace. Let’s continue the change. Sharon Graham for General Secretary – The Workers’ Candidate. I’m standing for re-election so that we can finish what we started and keep winning for workers.”

In 2021 Graham was elected in a three-horse race on the basis of 38% of votes cast – 47,000 votes out of a claimed union membership of 1.2 million. Fewer members voted in 2021 than in the preceding General Secretary election. The backbone of Graham’s campaign had been her own staff – members of the union’s Organising Department.

Union activists associated with Graham’s campaign were no more than ornamental decorations on a campaign run by a faction of the Unite bureaucracy. Then as now, a lifelong union bureaucrat presented herself as “the workers’ candidate”.

Central to Graham’s 2021 campaign was a trade union form of populism. Unite, she claimed, had allowed itself to be bedazzled by “the bright lights of Westminster.” Unite had had an “almost exclusive focus on the Labour Party.” It had “lost itself in the internal world of the Labour Party”.

The claim that Unite had had an “almost exclusive focus on the Labour Party” and had “lost itself in the internal world of the Labour Party” were as laughable as they were dishonest.

They did, however, provide a basis for Graham to demagogically sloganise around “Back to the Workplace”, as an alternative to the mythical almost-exclusive Labour Party focus. Graham promised to take Unite out of “the Westminster bubble … take Unite out of Westminster and back to the workplace.”

Graham’s 2026 campaign continues to be framed by the same false and populist counterposing of workplace industrial struggles to campaigning within the Labour Party for political change. In fact, the populist demagogy has reached new levels of incoherence:

“Sharon turned the Union’s full attention towards the workplace and away from the pantomime of Westminster politics. … No longer is Unite known for playing political games inside Westminster parties. Sharon has refused to rely on political saviours or disappear down the rabbit hole of Labour’s internal politics. 

“Instead, it is back to fighting for workers in the workplace. Sharon has proved by deed that her priority is the jobs, pay and conditions of Unite members, not Westminster. Members now matter more than politicians, and we don’t want to go back.”

In 2021 Graham promised: “I will produce a democratically agreed Workers’ Manifesto and use this as the spearhead for engagement with the Labour Party.” But the reality of the past five years is that there has been no written-by-Graham and rubber-stamped-by-the-membership Workers’ Manifesto as the basis for “engagement with the Labour Party”.

There has been no Workers Manifesto and no engagement with the Labour Party. Instead, sidelining involvement in the Labour Party is now portrayed as a badge of honour: “In her first weeks as General Secretary, she was the first leader to stand on picket lines with her members and put this before attending the Labour conference.”

That was in 2021. The following year a strike by Liverpool dockers coincided with the Labour Party annual conference in the city. Delegates, and even MPs from “the Westminster bubble”, found no difficulty attending conference and supporting striking workers on their picket lines. It is not a difficult thing to do – unless, it seems, you are the General Secretary of Unite.

The flipside of Graham’s false narrative of Unite having been too immersed in the Labour Party is the flickering existence of “Unite for Workers Economy” (UWE), plus the increase in strike activity by Unite members over the past five years.

UWE is not a coherent and ongoing rank-and-file led campaign. It is a flag of convenience for a succession of individual campaigns (Port Talbot steelworks, energy company super-profits, Grangemouth refinery, etc.) largely run by Unite officials, especially members of the Organising Department, with Unite members frequently reduced to the role of walk-on extras.

The increase in strike activity by Unite members is certainly real and has brought a succession of wins for some members: “Under Sharon’s leadership Unite has put over £700 million into members’ pockets from successful disputes alone. … 1,801 disputes involving 280,000 members, winning more than £700 million for workers (since 2021).”

But this is nothing unique to Unite. Members of other unions also go on strike and win – albeit without their General Secretary claiming the credit for it. Graham’s election website lists successful industrial disputes under the heading “Sharon’s Wins”.

In fact, Graham’s website even goes so far as to claim that all other unions have merely tagged along in her slipstream: “Being elected on the cusp of the cost-of-living crisis, Sharon’s influence was felt immediately. Sharon’s strong leadership fired the starting gun for the trade union fightback against inflation and a new found confidence spread across the movement.”

Graham is justified in highlighting, and even hyping up, the wins Unite members. She is running an election campaign. But hyping-up can also be a synonym for “misleading”.

Four of the top ten wages wins listed on Graham’s webpage – with wins of 30% plus – date from late 2021 and early 2022 and covered a total of 350 lorry drivers employed by one company (Wincanton logistics) on four different contracts.

Four big wins for the 350 members – but, unfortunately, not an accurate reflection of the general level of pay rises secured over the past five years.

Like all trade union bureaucrats standing for election as General Secretary, Graham promised more lay membership democracy and engagement in her 2021 election campaign: “To build our base and power, we are going to need much more engagement, not less.”

But that has certainly not found expression in implementation of policies democratically decided on by Unite policy conferences during the past five years. Policies on Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and the anti-union laws, for example, have simply been ignored. So too have many others.

Nor has it found expression in greater levels of participation in elections for Unite constitutional committees.

In the EC elections held earlier this year, average turnout for the different seats was only marginally higher than 5%. The (exceptionally) highest turnout was for the Retired Members seat (29%). The (by far) lowest turnout was for the Young Members seat (2.5%). Four seats were not even contested.

The level of activity by (real or supposed) rank-and-file organisations within Unite is at an all-time low. “Back to the Workplace” is no more than a trademark used by Graham and her supporters when standing for election. “Unite Broad Left”, launched by the Socialist Party in the early years of Graham’s term of office, failed to carve out a clear profile and never took off.

Graham’s 2026 election manifesto provides only two examples of “a promise made, a promise kept” under the heading of “Democracy: A Lay Members’ Union”.

One is the creation of a Democracy Commission, promised in 2021 but set up only in 2026. Graham’s supporters claim that the creation of the Commission was blocked by UL members on the EC. This may well be true. But given that Unite has not published any minutes of EC meetings since March 2023, it is difficult to know for sure.

The other example is: “Individual member communication from the General Secretary, including on Project Clean Up.” Or, translated into plain English: Unite headquarters in Holborn sometimes send out an all-members e-mail.

The nature of such communications has been politely summed up by the RS21 group: “It is frustrating that union communications always centre Graham herself rather than the efforts of workers themselves.” Others would be more critical of their tone and content.

In 2021 Graham promised that Unite would “work with others to establish a broad progressive platform” which would enable the Left to become “a sustainable force”. This was part of her overall sales pitch that she would “lead a progressive Union that moves beyond internal Labour politics.”

Five years later, Graham is far closer on many issues to GMB General Secretary Gary Smith (who gave up pretending to be left a long time ago) than to anything resembling progressive politics:

Support for airport expansion; support for increased military spending (with the caveat that it should be spent on British-manufactured armaments); support for ending Labour’s ban on issuing new North Sea drilling licences; support for scrapping the 2030 target of 80% of new cars being electric; and, most outlandish of all, opposition to Ed Miliband being appointed Chancellor in a Burnham-led government.

Graham even mimics Smith’s dismissal of concerns about climate change being a middle-class fad: "A lot of the left has now become a middle-class project – it now needs to work for the working class.”

Also noteworthy is that when Graham announced a cut of 40% in affiliation fees to Labour in March of this year, her criticisms of the then Starmer government’s failures made no mention of its plans for an even more intense crackdown on migration and asylum-seekers.

Graham’s bid for re-election is supported by the bulk of the left. They mutter about her political weaknesses but nonetheless call for critical support for her, combined with the need to “go beyond” her manifesto.

But the real attraction of Graham’s re-election for those sections of the left is her promise to hold a members’ referendum on whether Unite should remain affiliated to the Labour Party.

Under the heading “a promise made, a promise kept”, her 2026 election manifesto includes: “A members vote on Labour. A vote for all members on Labour affiliation before Rules Conference in 2027.”

But Graham made no such promise in 2021. On the contrary, she wrote: “There will always be questions over the Labour link, and I am not proposing here to break it. I think that there are other, more important things to focus on.”

Graham can try and square the circle by claiming that she is not advocating disaffiliation herself but is merely giving members a say on the issue.

Except that Graham has spent her entire term of office dismissing the relevance of Labour Party affiliation to her (non-existent) political strategy, has failed (with the exception of the campaign against cutting the winter fuel allowance) to use Unite’s affiliation to the Labour Party to promote Unite policies, and now attacks Labour from the right. She has thereby set the scene for possible disaffiliation.

Members of the union’s Organising Department – once again, the backbone of Graham’s campaign – have argued explicitly that the key difference between Graham and Dubbins is that the former supports disaffiliation while the latter is against it, and that is why members should back Graham. No nuance there about merely giving members a say.

Neither Graham nor Dubbins offer a way forward for Unite members. There are certainly very real differences between the contents of their election manifestos. But that does not mean that either is worthy of support from socialists and Unite activists, however “critical” that support might be.