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/09/labour-unions-ed-miliband-editorial

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

Version 0 Version 1
Labour and the unions: Mr Miliband rolls the dice Labour and the unions: Mr Miliband rolls the dice
(2 months later)
If a political event is judged by the reactions to it, there may in the end be less to Ed Miliband's speech on changing Labour's relationship with the unions than meets the eye. After all, if both Tony Blair, high priest of broad church Labour, and Unite's Len McCluskey, high commissar of class-against-class Labour, can pronounce themselves in favour of Mr Miliband's package, as happened today, the inference is either that something is being fudged or that one of them has read things wrong. The final answer to that will not be clear until the blueprint takes firmer shape in a few months' time. Even so, Mr Miliband has set big things running, not all of which were fully spelled out in the speech at London's St Bride Foundation.If a political event is judged by the reactions to it, there may in the end be less to Ed Miliband's speech on changing Labour's relationship with the unions than meets the eye. After all, if both Tony Blair, high priest of broad church Labour, and Unite's Len McCluskey, high commissar of class-against-class Labour, can pronounce themselves in favour of Mr Miliband's package, as happened today, the inference is either that something is being fudged or that one of them has read things wrong. The final answer to that will not be clear until the blueprint takes firmer shape in a few months' time. Even so, Mr Miliband has set big things running, not all of which were fully spelled out in the speech at London's St Bride Foundation.
The most heavily trailed of Mr Miliband's proposals was that trade unionists must opt in to become individual members of the party rather than opt out of the current institutional affiliation scheme. That certainly is big stuff, both because it recognises the individualist shift in society and within the unions since Labour was founded in 1900, and because it also puts the current £8m that Labour receives from its affiliated unions at hazard. Even if Mr Miliband persuades 200,000 or more union members – the minimum target he set today – to join as individuals, Labour's income would take the substantial hit that was trailed in the briefing before the speech.The most heavily trailed of Mr Miliband's proposals was that trade unionists must opt in to become individual members of the party rather than opt out of the current institutional affiliation scheme. That certainly is big stuff, both because it recognises the individualist shift in society and within the unions since Labour was founded in 1900, and because it also puts the current £8m that Labour receives from its affiliated unions at hazard. Even if Mr Miliband persuades 200,000 or more union members – the minimum target he set today – to join as individuals, Labour's income would take the substantial hit that was trailed in the briefing before the speech.
But that is not the end of the matter. Under the plans, unions will no longer affiliate hundreds of thousands of members to Labour as they do at present. Mr Miliband was nevertheless explicit that unions would continue to maintain the political funds from which the current block affiliations to Labour are financed. The result might even be a boost to the unions' political war-chests. The net result might therefore be that Labour gets money from the big unions in the form of selective donations, not affiliations.But that is not the end of the matter. Under the plans, unions will no longer affiliate hundreds of thousands of members to Labour as they do at present. Mr Miliband was nevertheless explicit that unions would continue to maintain the political funds from which the current block affiliations to Labour are financed. The result might even be a boost to the unions' political war-chests. The net result might therefore be that Labour gets money from the big unions in the form of selective donations, not affiliations.
Two very important possibilities could follow from all this. The first is that Mr Miliband's shift on the financial relationship with the unions may trigger a resumption of the party funding talks to which Nick Clegg called an end last week. The Miliband plan changes the nature of Labour's funding from block affiliation to individual membership plus donations. That is a new situation. Since Labour has previously proposed a £5,000 cap on all donations to political parties, the other two main parties may be tempted to call Mr Miliband's bluff if – but it is a very big "if" – they are prepared to agree to some kind of donation cap. This is surely worth a try.Two very important possibilities could follow from all this. The first is that Mr Miliband's shift on the financial relationship with the unions may trigger a resumption of the party funding talks to which Nick Clegg called an end last week. The Miliband plan changes the nature of Labour's funding from block affiliation to individual membership plus donations. That is a new situation. Since Labour has previously proposed a £5,000 cap on all donations to political parties, the other two main parties may be tempted to call Mr Miliband's bluff if – but it is a very big "if" – they are prepared to agree to some kind of donation cap. This is surely worth a try.
The second big implication is the undermining of the place and credibility of the block vote in Labour decision-making. If unions no longer affiliate their members to Labour, by what logic can they claim to have a block vote at party conference or in some party elections any longer? Mr Miliband said nothing about this today but it is a clear inference from the speech. Lord Collins, the former Labour general secretary tasked with giving substance to the reforms, will have to examine this. He will also have to examine the implications for Labour's electoral college system of leadership election and candidate selection.The second big implication is the undermining of the place and credibility of the block vote in Labour decision-making. If unions no longer affiliate their members to Labour, by what logic can they claim to have a block vote at party conference or in some party elections any longer? Mr Miliband said nothing about this today but it is a clear inference from the speech. Lord Collins, the former Labour general secretary tasked with giving substance to the reforms, will have to examine this. He will also have to examine the implications for Labour's electoral college system of leadership election and candidate selection.
These are big rolls of the political dice. But Mr Miliband is a high-minded gambler. By attempting to be both pro-union and a reformer at the same time, he is being commendably true to his beliefs that working people must have a place at the centre of the Labour party. His plan to widen some Labour candidate selections, including the London mayoral nomination, to open primaries, is excellent. But Mr Miliband may also be missing an opportunity. His ratings as a leader and potential prime minister are low. The confrontation with Mr McCluskey was a gift to critics who want to frame him as a weak Labour leader. This was a chance to reframe things. Mr Miliband has set out many worthwhile proposals which may ultimately achieve that goal. But the proposals will not definitively add up to the act of strong leadership that Falkirk required until they take more detailed shape.These are big rolls of the political dice. But Mr Miliband is a high-minded gambler. By attempting to be both pro-union and a reformer at the same time, he is being commendably true to his beliefs that working people must have a place at the centre of the Labour party. His plan to widen some Labour candidate selections, including the London mayoral nomination, to open primaries, is excellent. But Mr Miliband may also be missing an opportunity. His ratings as a leader and potential prime minister are low. The confrontation with Mr McCluskey was a gift to critics who want to frame him as a weak Labour leader. This was a chance to reframe things. Mr Miliband has set out many worthwhile proposals which may ultimately achieve that goal. But the proposals will not definitively add up to the act of strong leadership that Falkirk required until they take more detailed shape.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.