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/23/ed-miliband-blair-union-reforms

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

Version 0 Version 1
Ed Miliband is not Blair – gambling on union reforms makes him look weak Ed Miliband is not Blair – gambling on union reforms makes him look weak
(2 months later)
Ed Miliband is attempting to go further than Tony Blair in reforming Labour's relationship with the trade unions. The explicit rationale is that he will be updating an outmoded alliance. The tragic subtext is that Miliband's allies think this will be popular and make Miliband look strong.Ed Miliband is attempting to go further than Tony Blair in reforming Labour's relationship with the trade unions. The explicit rationale is that he will be updating an outmoded alliance. The tragic subtext is that Miliband's allies think this will be popular and make Miliband look strong.
The form for this was set by the Blairites back in the early 1990s. They had figured out that the magical formula to winning elections was to attack your own side. This had almost worked for Neil Kinnock twice in a row, and Blair's allies were sure it could work for him.The form for this was set by the Blairites back in the early 1990s. They had figured out that the magical formula to winning elections was to attack your own side. This had almost worked for Neil Kinnock twice in a row, and Blair's allies were sure it could work for him.
Their explicit rationale was that the 1992 election defeat took place because Labour was still seen as a class-bound union dinosaur, rather than a modern party of aspiration. As it turned out, there was absolutely no truth whatsoever to the claim that unions cost Labour the election. Most voters didn't care about that. The defeats for Labour reflected the continuing structural effect of a deep rupture in the party's base in the period from 1979 to 1983, when millions of supporters, including trade unionists, decamped to the Liberals or the SDP.Their explicit rationale was that the 1992 election defeat took place because Labour was still seen as a class-bound union dinosaur, rather than a modern party of aspiration. As it turned out, there was absolutely no truth whatsoever to the claim that unions cost Labour the election. Most voters didn't care about that. The defeats for Labour reflected the continuing structural effect of a deep rupture in the party's base in the period from 1979 to 1983, when millions of supporters, including trade unionists, decamped to the Liberals or the SDP.
Another significant strategic factor was that Blair and Peter Mandelson believed attacking the unions was the only way to get Rupert Murdoch on board, and thus break open the Tory press axis. This was part of a strategy to woo the businesses that New Labour would work with in government as part of its growth strategy. In this sense, the strategy paid off: businesses were happy to fund Labour conferences and Murdoch was pleased to give Blair his support. Labour cleaned up among swing voters.Another significant strategic factor was that Blair and Peter Mandelson believed attacking the unions was the only way to get Rupert Murdoch on board, and thus break open the Tory press axis. This was part of a strategy to woo the businesses that New Labour would work with in government as part of its growth strategy. In this sense, the strategy paid off: businesses were happy to fund Labour conferences and Murdoch was pleased to give Blair his support. Labour cleaned up among swing voters.
However, the resulting cosy and sometimes corrupt relationship was one of the things that made New Labour incredibly unpopular. It began with Murdoch, Lakshmi Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone, and continued with the bankers. The coda to the Blair-Brown regime was the squalid revelation that a set of Blairite former ministers – Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon – were caught in a sting operation, telling someone they believed to be an American lobbyist that they could change policy for £5,000 a day.However, the resulting cosy and sometimes corrupt relationship was one of the things that made New Labour incredibly unpopular. It began with Murdoch, Lakshmi Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone, and continued with the bankers. The coda to the Blair-Brown regime was the squalid revelation that a set of Blairite former ministers – Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon – were caught in a sting operation, telling someone they believed to be an American lobbyist that they could change policy for £5,000 a day.
Miliband took the Labour leadership not just on the basis of union support but also because he was going to do something different. He argued that the party had lost 5 million votes, most of them core working class votes, and that the party couldn't afford to ignore them in favour of middle class swing voters. Thus far, his attempt to realise this in policy has been the patronising "one-nation" Labour, with all its socially conservative thematics. Now, Blairites and Tory MPs are egging him on admiringly, and he is not even pretending to articulate a core vote strategy.Miliband took the Labour leadership not just on the basis of union support but also because he was going to do something different. He argued that the party had lost 5 million votes, most of them core working class votes, and that the party couldn't afford to ignore them in favour of middle class swing voters. Thus far, his attempt to realise this in policy has been the patronising "one-nation" Labour, with all its socially conservative thematics. Now, Blairites and Tory MPs are egging him on admiringly, and he is not even pretending to articulate a core vote strategy.
Miliband has called a special conference to debate the issue – the same device that was used to abolish clause IV. This is clearly intended in a similar spirit to Blair's symbolic attack on a largely inoperative political commitment, but the problem for Miliband is that unlike Blair's constitutional reform, this move will actually cost him.Miliband has called a special conference to debate the issue – the same device that was used to abolish clause IV. This is clearly intended in a similar spirit to Blair's symbolic attack on a largely inoperative political commitment, but the problem for Miliband is that unlike Blair's constitutional reform, this move will actually cost him.
A recent survey concluded that if union subs to Labour were on an individual, voluntary basis, only 12% of Unite members would actually sign up. This would represent a serious funding shortfall. Some Miliband supporters are, however, anxious to find good news in this. As the headline in the New Statesman puts it, "Boost for Miliband: poll shows 170,000 Unite members would opt-in to join Labour".A recent survey concluded that if union subs to Labour were on an individual, voluntary basis, only 12% of Unite members would actually sign up. This would represent a serious funding shortfall. Some Miliband supporters are, however, anxious to find good news in this. As the headline in the New Statesman puts it, "Boost for Miliband: poll shows 170,000 Unite members would opt-in to join Labour".
The problem for Miliband is he doesn't look strong. Blair was a man galvanised by a particular historical moment, ready to fight his own party and much of the public in order to modernise Britain. Miliband just looks as though he's caving under the merest whiff of an attack from the Tories, not because he believes he should, but because the Blairite inner circle does. In the end, if he gets his desired reforms approved by a special conference, he will have failed to rebuild the party's membership or core vote, and he will still be panhandling for money, from the unions and any passing businessman.The problem for Miliband is he doesn't look strong. Blair was a man galvanised by a particular historical moment, ready to fight his own party and much of the public in order to modernise Britain. Miliband just looks as though he's caving under the merest whiff of an attack from the Tories, not because he believes he should, but because the Blairite inner circle does. In the end, if he gets his desired reforms approved by a special conference, he will have failed to rebuild the party's membership or core vote, and he will still be panhandling for money, from the unions and any passing businessman.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.