This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/unite-crisis-miliband-opportunity-rawnsley

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Unite row is a grave crisis that Ed Miliband could turn into a great opportunity The Unite row is a grave crisis that Ed Miliband could turn into a great opportunity
(2 months later)
'Never let a serious crisis go to waste," said the American politician Rahm Emanuel, who was borrowing from Winston Churchill, who may have stolen the phrase from someone else. Whoever was the true originator of this advice, its meaning is that a crisis can present a leader with an opportunity to do things that could not have been attempted before. I recommend the maxim to Ed Miliband as he is embroiled in the gravest crisis of his leadership. The war with Unite – was ever there a trade union with a less appropriate name? – is causing convulsions within the party as well as being mercilessly exploited by the Tories to further their argument that he is weak. The Labour leader's first reaction was to think this is not a fight I want. He ought now to be saying to himself: great. Here is a fantastic opportunity to confront and clear away some of the obstacles that lie between him and power.'Never let a serious crisis go to waste," said the American politician Rahm Emanuel, who was borrowing from Winston Churchill, who may have stolen the phrase from someone else. Whoever was the true originator of this advice, its meaning is that a crisis can present a leader with an opportunity to do things that could not have been attempted before. I recommend the maxim to Ed Miliband as he is embroiled in the gravest crisis of his leadership. The war with Unite – was ever there a trade union with a less appropriate name? – is causing convulsions within the party as well as being mercilessly exploited by the Tories to further their argument that he is weak. The Labour leader's first reaction was to think this is not a fight I want. He ought now to be saying to himself: great. Here is a fantastic opportunity to confront and clear away some of the obstacles that lie between him and power.
The challenge goes much wider than dealing with the allegations, now referred to the police, that swirl around the selection of a parliamentary candidate in one Scottish seat. "Falkirk is the flashpoint," observes one senior member of the shadow cabinet. "But it could have been almost anywhere." It is a symptom of a much deeper-seated dysfunction in the relationship between the unions and the party they founded back in 1900. I am reminded of the old joke about the long-married woman who is asked whether she has ever contemplated divorce from her difficult husband. "Murder, often," she replies. "Divorce, never." Labour and the unions have often been murderous towards each other. The language being exchanged between Mr Miliband and Len McCluskey, the boss of Unite, is in a rich tradition of mutual abuse within the movement of brotherly love. But for most on both sides, the idea of divorce has always been and remains unthinkable.The challenge goes much wider than dealing with the allegations, now referred to the police, that swirl around the selection of a parliamentary candidate in one Scottish seat. "Falkirk is the flashpoint," observes one senior member of the shadow cabinet. "But it could have been almost anywhere." It is a symptom of a much deeper-seated dysfunction in the relationship between the unions and the party they founded back in 1900. I am reminded of the old joke about the long-married woman who is asked whether she has ever contemplated divorce from her difficult husband. "Murder, often," she replies. "Divorce, never." Labour and the unions have often been murderous towards each other. The language being exchanged between Mr Miliband and Len McCluskey, the boss of Unite, is in a rich tradition of mutual abuse within the movement of brotherly love. But for most on both sides, the idea of divorce has always been and remains unthinkable.
Yet the truth is that this marriage does not make either side happy. It is a bad bargain for Labour and a worse one for the trade unions themselves. Labour leaders get exposed to the charge, which is currently being megaphoned by the Tories, that they are puppets of their paymasters. Yet the paymasters feel permanently aggrieved that they never get value for their money. The last Labour government introduced a minimum wage, spent more on public services and improved the pay of public sector workers. But that's not because the unions wrote cheques. Those are things a Labour government wants to do anyway. On those issues of most sectional interest to the unions, the last Labour government was a great let-down because it did not reverse the Thatcher-era restrictions on their activities.Yet the truth is that this marriage does not make either side happy. It is a bad bargain for Labour and a worse one for the trade unions themselves. Labour leaders get exposed to the charge, which is currently being megaphoned by the Tories, that they are puppets of their paymasters. Yet the paymasters feel permanently aggrieved that they never get value for their money. The last Labour government introduced a minimum wage, spent more on public services and improved the pay of public sector workers. But that's not because the unions wrote cheques. Those are things a Labour government wants to do anyway. On those issues of most sectional interest to the unions, the last Labour government was a great let-down because it did not reverse the Thatcher-era restrictions on their activities.
Ed Miliband is much warmer, both emotionally and intellectually, to trade unions than ever was Tony Blair. And not just because he needed their votes to snatch the leadership from his older brother. Yet he has frequently bitten the hand that crowned him. He has supported a public sector pay freeze. He recently signed up to the coalition's spending limits for the first year of the next parliament. He has condemned strikes. That infuriates union bosses. Such disappointment is programmed into the relationship. The formal link actually makes it less likely, not more, that Labour leaders will feel able to do things that trade unions might like. There is a good case for imitating the Germans and saying that there should be trade union representation on company boards. Now, ask yourself this: does the conduct of Unite make it easier or harder for Labour frontbenchers to advance the case for union representation on boards?Ed Miliband is much warmer, both emotionally and intellectually, to trade unions than ever was Tony Blair. And not just because he needed their votes to snatch the leadership from his older brother. Yet he has frequently bitten the hand that crowned him. He has supported a public sector pay freeze. He recently signed up to the coalition's spending limits for the first year of the next parliament. He has condemned strikes. That infuriates union bosses. Such disappointment is programmed into the relationship. The formal link actually makes it less likely, not more, that Labour leaders will feel able to do things that trade unions might like. There is a good case for imitating the Germans and saying that there should be trade union representation on company boards. Now, ask yourself this: does the conduct of Unite make it easier or harder for Labour frontbenchers to advance the case for union representation on boards?
Then there is the money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with individual trade unionists supporting the Labour party. That is not only their perfect right, it is also much more wholesome than the financing of the Tories, who are so dependent on millionaires, or the Lib Dems, who have never given back the loot they took from a criminal. What is wrong with Labour's financial relationship with the unions is the way it is structured. The current working of the "political levy" paid by union members concentrates a huge amount of clout in the hands of the few senior officials who control the cash along with half the votes at Labour conferences. In the words of one member of the shadow cabinet: "We have a big problem with a small number of people who control a very large chequebook."Then there is the money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with individual trade unionists supporting the Labour party. That is not only their perfect right, it is also much more wholesome than the financing of the Tories, who are so dependent on millionaires, or the Lib Dems, who have never given back the loot they took from a criminal. What is wrong with Labour's financial relationship with the unions is the way it is structured. The current working of the "political levy" paid by union members concentrates a huge amount of clout in the hands of the few senior officials who control the cash along with half the votes at Labour conferences. In the words of one member of the shadow cabinet: "We have a big problem with a small number of people who control a very large chequebook."
The union bosses are not actually made happier by this arrangement. When they hand over big sums – £8m since the last election in the case of Unite – they get disgruntled when Labour leaders don't dance to their tunes. From its point of view, it is perfectly understandable that Unite has been scheming to install MPs sympathetic to its agenda in more than 40 seats. The cosmetic defence for the union's activities is that it is seeking to increase the number of working-class MPs. I am all for that. Among the many virtues of having more working-class MPs is they would be less likely to whine that parliamentarians are underpaid. But the candidate being pushed by Unite in Falkirk is not a bus driver, building worker or office cleaner. Karie Murphy is an office manager at Westminster. Rather more relevant than her class origins is this: she is a close friend of Mr McCluskey and the office she manages belongs to Tom Watson, former flatmate of Mr McCluskey. Looking at some of the other candidates that Unite has been trying to manoeuvre into seats, working class is often not the first thing that springs to mind.The union bosses are not actually made happier by this arrangement. When they hand over big sums – £8m since the last election in the case of Unite – they get disgruntled when Labour leaders don't dance to their tunes. From its point of view, it is perfectly understandable that Unite has been scheming to install MPs sympathetic to its agenda in more than 40 seats. The cosmetic defence for the union's activities is that it is seeking to increase the number of working-class MPs. I am all for that. Among the many virtues of having more working-class MPs is they would be less likely to whine that parliamentarians are underpaid. But the candidate being pushed by Unite in Falkirk is not a bus driver, building worker or office cleaner. Karie Murphy is an office manager at Westminster. Rather more relevant than her class origins is this: she is a close friend of Mr McCluskey and the office she manages belongs to Tom Watson, former flatmate of Mr McCluskey. Looking at some of the other candidates that Unite has been trying to manoeuvre into seats, working class is often not the first thing that springs to mind.
This is not about class – it is about an ideological agenda. Mr McCluskey was a supporter of the Militant tendency in the 1980s. His chief of staff is a member of the Communist party. If he and his comrades want to present a different political choice to the country, then they are perfectly entitled to support a party to the left of Labour or form one of their own. They can write a manifesto detailing their vision of McCluskeyite socialism and see how many votes it attracts. What they are not entitled to do is use their funds to try to stuff the Labour parliamentary party with people obedient to a hard left agenda.This is not about class – it is about an ideological agenda. Mr McCluskey was a supporter of the Militant tendency in the 1980s. His chief of staff is a member of the Communist party. If he and his comrades want to present a different political choice to the country, then they are perfectly entitled to support a party to the left of Labour or form one of their own. They can write a manifesto detailing their vision of McCluskeyite socialism and see how many votes it attracts. What they are not entitled to do is use their funds to try to stuff the Labour parliamentary party with people obedient to a hard left agenda.
Mr Miliband's initial responses were not strong. He was wrong to describe Falkirk as "an isolated case". His colleagues are being loyal, but not entirely truthful, when they claim he acted "swiftly and decisively". Two years ago, he made moves to dilute the power of union bosses. His aides briefed that there would be a "sweeping modernisation" of the relationship. After a fierce push back, he retreated.Mr Miliband's initial responses were not strong. He was wrong to describe Falkirk as "an isolated case". His colleagues are being loyal, but not entirely truthful, when they claim he acted "swiftly and decisively". Two years ago, he made moves to dilute the power of union bosses. His aides briefed that there would be a "sweeping modernisation" of the relationship. After a fierce push back, he retreated.
His first response to the Falkirk scandal was to try to shrug it off as a little local difficulty rather than get to grips with the deeper problems that it has exposed. He initially planned to defend the role played by Mr Watson. We know that from a PMQs crib sheet left in a lavatory. We also know it from the narcissistic letter that Mr Watson subsequently wrote announcing his resignation as elections co-ordinator.His first response to the Falkirk scandal was to try to shrug it off as a little local difficulty rather than get to grips with the deeper problems that it has exposed. He initially planned to defend the role played by Mr Watson. We know that from a PMQs crib sheet left in a lavatory. We also know it from the narcissistic letter that Mr Watson subsequently wrote announcing his resignation as elections co-ordinator.
Only belatedly and after a humiliation at prime minister's questions did Mr Miliband begin to appreciate the severity of the test to which he's being put. In the words of one senior Labour figure close to the leader: "This is now fucking serious and needs a big answer."Only belatedly and after a humiliation at prime minister's questions did Mr Miliband begin to appreciate the severity of the test to which he's being put. In the words of one senior Labour figure close to the leader: "This is now fucking serious and needs a big answer."
The obvious priority is to sort out the Falkirk imbroglio and any other scandals that come to light as well as to rewrite Labour's rules so that no one can in future buy memberships to fix selections. But those are only first steps. To come out of this crisis looking in charge, Mr Miliband will have to be much bolder. He will have to be much more radical than he is in the tentative article by him that we publish today. He has to address directly the disproportionate power wielded in party leadership votes, candidate selection and decision-making by a small number of union officials who have often been elected on pathetic turnouts. He should declare that trade unionists choosing to pay the political levy will in future become full members of the party with individual votes. That democratising reform would take power away from the unrepresentative few and give it to the many. As an added bonus, I am sure he will find that most trade union members are a lot more grounded and rational about politics than many of their leaders.The obvious priority is to sort out the Falkirk imbroglio and any other scandals that come to light as well as to rewrite Labour's rules so that no one can in future buy memberships to fix selections. But those are only first steps. To come out of this crisis looking in charge, Mr Miliband will have to be much bolder. He will have to be much more radical than he is in the tentative article by him that we publish today. He has to address directly the disproportionate power wielded in party leadership votes, candidate selection and decision-making by a small number of union officials who have often been elected on pathetic turnouts. He should declare that trade unionists choosing to pay the political levy will in future become full members of the party with individual votes. That democratising reform would take power away from the unrepresentative few and give it to the many. As an added bonus, I am sure he will find that most trade union members are a lot more grounded and rational about politics than many of their leaders.
This might very well entail fighting a bloody battle with some union bosses, the sort of fight that he has spent his leadership trying to avoid. Well, it is too late to run now. The fight has come to him anyway. Mr Miliband needs to intensify the struggle and he needs to win it. The Tories want to portray him as feeble, especially when it comes to the unions. David Cameron calls him "weak, weak, weak" not just because the prime minister likes to abuse the Labour leader. It is because the Tories reckon it resonates. And the polls tell us that it does. The worst of Mr Miliband's personal ratings is when voters are asked whether he is capable of taking a tough decision. The number invariably comes in at below 20%.This might very well entail fighting a bloody battle with some union bosses, the sort of fight that he has spent his leadership trying to avoid. Well, it is too late to run now. The fight has come to him anyway. Mr Miliband needs to intensify the struggle and he needs to win it. The Tories want to portray him as feeble, especially when it comes to the unions. David Cameron calls him "weak, weak, weak" not just because the prime minister likes to abuse the Labour leader. It is because the Tories reckon it resonates. And the polls tell us that it does. The worst of Mr Miliband's personal ratings is when voters are asked whether he is capable of taking a tough decision. The number invariably comes in at below 20%.
He needs to prove them wrong. This is his chance to do so. In this crisis, he has a great opportunity – but only if he seizes it and with urgency.He needs to prove them wrong. This is his chance to do so. In this crisis, he has a great opportunity – but only if he seizes it and with urgency.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.