'Ed Miliband's TUC speech: panel verdict' diff viewer (0/1)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on September 10, 2013 13:30 (UTC). 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.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/ed-miliband-tuc-speech-panel

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

Previous version 1 Next version

Previous version 1 Next version

Version 0	Version 1
Ed Miliband's TUC speech: panel verdict	Ed Miliband's TUC speech: panel verdict
2013-09-10 13:35:07 UTC	2013-09-18 19:06:11 UTC (8 days later)
Len McCluskey: 'The Labour-unions link is in our bones'	Len McCluskey: 'The Labour-unions link is in our bones'
Ed Miliband has rolled the dice. He is gambling that reform of the relationship between trade unions and the party we founded will renew Labour's compact with the voting public. At a time when people are reappraising formal politics, finding more life in the digital world than in dusty party meetings, this is a tall order. Then there is the danger of defining the party in the mind of the public as internally focused when all eyes should be looking to 2015.	Ed Miliband has rolled the dice. He is gambling that reform of the relationship between trade unions and the party we founded will renew Labour's compact with the voting public. At a time when people are reappraising formal politics, finding more life in the digital world than in dusty party meetings, this is a tall order. Then there is the danger of defining the party in the mind of the public as internally focused when all eyes should be looking to 2015.
But this is a gamble worth taking because, let's face it, the status quo was not working. Labour lost 5 million voters at the last election; it was not the relationship with unions that turned these voters away but a loss in faith in the party itself.	But this is a gamble worth taking because, let's face it, the status quo was not working. Labour lost 5 million voters at the last election; it was not the relationship with unions that turned these voters away but a loss in faith in the party itself.
Miliband now has the chance to tackle this head on, developing policies that will bring people back to our party. One thing is for sure, our historic connection between the party and the unions that founded must endure. Those within the party's midst who seek to twist the leader's ambition for renewal to meet their long-held desire to close the door in the unions' faces better beware. Our link is what makes Labour distinctive, without it, then what does Labour stand for and, importantly, who does it stand for?	Miliband now has the chance to tackle this head on, developing policies that will bring people back to our party. One thing is for sure, our historic connection between the party and the unions that founded must endure. Those within the party's midst who seek to twist the leader's ambition for renewal to meet their long-held desire to close the door in the unions' faces better beware. Our link is what makes Labour distinctive, without it, then what does Labour stand for and, importantly, who does it stand for?
So the link is not up for question. It is in our bones and for as long as the collective good retains its profound capacity to sculpt our country for the better, it will stay.	So the link is not up for question. It is in our bones and for as long as the collective good retains its profound capacity to sculpt our country for the better, it will stay.
Thankfully, Miliband agrees. Unlike Cameron who regards the nation's 6 million trade unionists as a "threat" (take a look at today's news of 1700 good jobs created at Jaguar, a Unite workforce delivering a world class product, to see how contemptuous that view is), Miliband understands that the social achievements that have made this nation a better place – from founding the NHS to fairer wages, even the weekend – come from working people and their unions.	Thankfully, Miliband agrees. Unlike Cameron who regards the nation's 6 million trade unionists as a "threat" (take a look at today's news of 1700 good jobs created at Jaguar, a Unite workforce delivering a world class product, to see how contemptuous that view is), Miliband understands that the social achievements that have made this nation a better place – from founding the NHS to fairer wages, even the weekend – come from working people and their unions.
We ought now to stand proud behind our achievements, to draw strength from these to create a modern-day offer as courageous, as ground-breaking, as life-enhancing for this country's people as what went before.	We ought now to stand proud behind our achievements, to draw strength from these to create a modern-day offer as courageous, as ground-breaking, as life-enhancing for this country's people as what went before.
The millionaires and non-doms have a party that represents their interests very well. It is the nurses, shop workers, teachers and carers, the lorry drivers and transport workers, the hotel workers and those treated as throwaway labour on zero-hours contracts who need a party that speaks for them. It is our country which needs homes for tomorrow and decent work for the future that now so desperately needs a Labour party that puts the people's interests before those of privilege and the City. Any idea that sticking to Tory spending plans to achieve these, and make Labour positively distinctive, must be set aside, and now.	The millionaires and non-doms have a party that represents their interests very well. It is the nurses, shop workers, teachers and carers, the lorry drivers and transport workers, the hotel workers and those treated as throwaway labour on zero-hours contracts who need a party that speaks for them. It is our country which needs homes for tomorrow and decent work for the future that now so desperately needs a Labour party that puts the people's interests before those of privilege and the City. Any idea that sticking to Tory spending plans to achieve these, and make Labour positively distinctive, must be set aside, and now.
• Len McCluskey is general secretary of Unite	• Len McCluskey is general secretary of Unite
Frances O'Grady: 'What struck me most was his reference to 1945'	Frances O'Grady: 'What struck me most was his reference to 1945'
Ed Miliband is the first Labour leader in a generation not to be embarrassed by Labour's historic roots as a party formed out of the trade unions. In contrast to the coalition, trying to gag unions and other dissenting voices through their lobbying bill, he understands the role that unions and a vibrant civil society play in public life.	Ed Miliband is the first Labour leader in a generation not to be embarrassed by Labour's historic roots as a party formed out of the trade unions. In contrast to the coalition, trying to gag unions and other dissenting voices through their lobbying bill, he understands the role that unions and a vibrant civil society play in public life.
Unions are attacked as vested interests and pay-masters whenever we prick the Westminster bubble with the concerns of the workplace. But our issues become the common sense of the age. The NHS, equal pay, the minimum wage and making employers pay into pensions were all pushed by unions, first from the fringe then into a national consensus embraced by all.	Unions are attacked as vested interests and pay-masters whenever we prick the Westminster bubble with the concerns of the workplace. But our issues become the common sense of the age. The NHS, equal pay, the minimum wage and making employers pay into pensions were all pushed by unions, first from the fringe then into a national consensus embraced by all.
What struck me most about Miliband's speech was his reference to 1945. That was when Labour came into power when the nation was hardly flush with cash, but had the courage to make a decisive difference to ordinary lives. With the determination shown then by Labour's greatest ever government, a new government can tackle today's workplace agenda – the great squeeze in living standards and the growth of vulnerable working through zero-hours contracts and others ways employers are transferring risks that were once shared on to low-paid staff.	What struck me most about Miliband's speech was his reference to 1945. That was when Labour came into power when the nation was hardly flush with cash, but had the courage to make a decisive difference to ordinary lives. With the determination shown then by Labour's greatest ever government, a new government can tackle today's workplace agenda – the great squeeze in living standards and the growth of vulnerable working through zero-hours contracts and others ways employers are transferring risks that were once shared on to low-paid staff.
Many commentators will focus on what he had to say about the party's constitution. Its nuts and bolts are not a matter for the TUC, but discussions of its future will now play out against a shared policy agenda and a warm relationship. Our campaigns continue, but in Ed Miliband we have a ready audience.	Many commentators will focus on what he had to say about the party's constitution. Its nuts and bolts are not a matter for the TUC, but discussions of its future will now play out against a shared policy agenda and a warm relationship. Our campaigns continue, but in Ed Miliband we have a ready audience.
• Frances O'Grady is general secretary of the TUC	• Frances O'Grady is general secretary of the TUC
Emma Burnell: 'Ed successfully walked the tightrope'	Emma Burnell: 'Ed successfully walked the tightrope'
Applause was muted, but there was no booing. I'm not sure who will prefer that – Miliband's critics or his allies. The speech got better as he warmed up and gathered momentum. He ended on a very Obamaesque message of hope: "In tough times we don't lower our sights, we raise them."	Applause was muted, but there was no booing. I'm not sure who will prefer that – Miliband's critics or his allies. The speech got better as he warmed up and gathered momentum. He ended on a very Obamaesque message of hope: "In tough times we don't lower our sights, we raise them."
When Gordon Brown was in government, his aides would deliver bad news in a "shit sandwich". You offer good news, then the bad and finish with a flourish of good news. Miliband ensured that his strong defence of his reforms to the Labour/union link was sandwiched between an attack on the Tories and a vision of better comfort and security for working people – something few trade unionists could disagree with. So I'm guessing that the aim was not to do a Blair and show yourself being booed by the unions.	When Gordon Brown was in government, his aides would deliver bad news in a "shit sandwich". You offer good news, then the bad and finish with a flourish of good news. Miliband ensured that his strong defence of his reforms to the Labour/union link was sandwiched between an attack on the Tories and a vision of better comfort and security for working people – something few trade unionists could disagree with. So I'm guessing that the aim was not to do a Blair and show yourself being booed by the unions.
Some of the announcements were new – zero-hours contracts legislation for example. Some were rehashes of old announcements – on taxing bankers' bonuses to pay for the young person's jobs guarantee.	Some of the announcements were new – zero-hours contracts legislation for example. Some were rehashes of old announcements – on taxing bankers' bonuses to pay for the young person's jobs guarantee.
But this was not really about the announcements. Most of those will be saved for Labour conference. It was about the tightrope Miliband is trying to walk between retaining relationships with the unions and changing the way they function. In those terms, he succeeded. It was wobbly at times, but he got to the other side.	But this was not really about the announcements. Most of those will be saved for Labour conference. It was about the tightrope Miliband is trying to walk between retaining relationships with the unions and changing the way they function. In those terms, he succeeded. It was wobbly at times, but he got to the other side.
• Emma Burnell is a campaigns and public policy professional	• Emma Burnell is a campaigns and public policy professional
Richard Seymour: 'This is no democratisation of funds'	Richard Seymour: 'This is no democratisation of funds'
Far more interesting than what Miliband says to the unions is what they say to him. It is painful to watch the Labour leader attempt to mimic the mannerisms of an inspiring orator; excruciating to hear him reiterate Labour's commitment to austerity; boring to see his anodyne scripted responses to anodyne scripted questions. Above all, it is totally unconvincing to hear that Labour can add 300,000 new members by assailing the union link. The evidence from a YouGov poll is that he can win this argument with affiliated trade unionists because most of them don't support Labour. They aren't striving toward Labour, but breaking from Labour. Labour's base has been fragmenting for years; Miliband is simply expediting the process.	Far more interesting than what Miliband says to the unions is what they say to him. It is painful to watch the Labour leader attempt to mimic the mannerisms of an inspiring orator; excruciating to hear him reiterate Labour's commitment to austerity; boring to see his anodyne scripted responses to anodyne scripted questions. Above all, it is totally unconvincing to hear that Labour can add 300,000 new members by assailing the union link. The evidence from a YouGov poll is that he can win this argument with affiliated trade unionists because most of them don't support Labour. They aren't striving toward Labour, but breaking from Labour. Labour's base has been fragmenting for years; Miliband is simply expediting the process.
The big question is how do unions respond. Will they democratise the political funds? Can members decide how their money is spent each year? This is something the trade union left has long sought. After all, why should members automatically fund a party that spurns them in office? Why shouldn't they back alternatives?	The big question is how do unions respond. Will they democratise the political funds? Can members decide how their money is spent each year? This is something the trade union left has long sought. After all, why should members automatically fund a party that spurns them in office? Why shouldn't they back alternatives?
Union leaders always reject this, claiming it will mean disaffiliation from Labour. They will most likely retain the political funds in their current form, and haggle with Labour leaders over how much and when to donate. Given "how fragile the Labour party's finances are", with "very little assets" and "no cash", no wonder the union bureaucracy thinks "we will have more financial clout than before".	Union leaders always reject this, claiming it will mean disaffiliation from Labour. They will most likely retain the political funds in their current form, and haggle with Labour leaders over how much and when to donate. Given "how fragile the Labour party's finances are", with "very little assets" and "no cash", no wonder the union bureaucracy thinks "we will have more financial clout than before".
There has been a lot of talk about democratisation. What actually appears to be happening is nothing of the sort; it is instead the consolidation of a client relationship with the union bureaucracy, which will be entrenched even as Labour's base in the union grassroots withers.	There has been a lot of talk about democratisation. What actually appears to be happening is nothing of the sort; it is instead the consolidation of a client relationship with the union bureaucracy, which will be entrenched even as Labour's base in the union grassroots withers.
• Richard Seymour is a political activist who blogs at Lenin's tomb	• Richard Seymour is a political activist who blogs at Lenin's tomb
Melissa Kite: 'Some good catchphrases in difficult times'	Melissa Kite: 'Some good catchphrases in difficult times'
I am never quite sure what Miliband is trying to say when he pays tribute to former Tory leaders, which he seems to do more and more often. In this speech, he bigged up the 14th Earl of Derby, Edward Stanley, who legislated to allow trade unions. The logic of this is lost on me. Is he saying Tory prime ministers are actually the radical ones who get things done for working people? Or is he saying the Tory party is a pale shadow of the reforming party it once was? I suppose the latter. But it wasn't at all clear.	I am never quite sure what Miliband is trying to say when he pays tribute to former Tory leaders, which he seems to do more and more often. In this speech, he bigged up the 14th Earl of Derby, Edward Stanley, who legislated to allow trade unions. The logic of this is lost on me. Is he saying Tory prime ministers are actually the radical ones who get things done for working people? Or is he saying the Tory party is a pale shadow of the reforming party it once was? I suppose the latter. But it wasn't at all clear.
Once he got going, however, he was on much firmer ground with his "unfair recovery" routine. It was not a bad riff. "You can't build an economy that works for working people unless working people have confidence and security."	Once he got going, however, he was on much firmer ground with his "unfair recovery" routine. It was not a bad riff. "You can't build an economy that works for working people unless working people have confidence and security."
Miliband has certainly hit upon a theme with his new catchphrase: "Whose recovery is it anyway?" When he asks who is enjoying the growth George Osborne is boasting about, he hits the Tories where it hurts. Middle Britons are certainly not feeling very flush as the chancellor tells them everything is coming up roses, proving his economic strategy correct. Living standards are more squeezed than ever and the cost of living is just as eye-watering as it ever was during the height of the recession. So many families will listen sympathetically to Miliband when he questions who the recovery is really benefiting.	Miliband has certainly hit upon a theme with his new catchphrase: "Whose recovery is it anyway?" When he asks who is enjoying the growth George Osborne is boasting about, he hits the Tories where it hurts. Middle Britons are certainly not feeling very flush as the chancellor tells them everything is coming up roses, proving his economic strategy correct. Living standards are more squeezed than ever and the cost of living is just as eye-watering as it ever was during the height of the recession. So many families will listen sympathetically to Miliband when he questions who the recovery is really benefiting.
The argument that "it is fixed for their friends, for a few at the top of society" will niggle David Cameron and Osborne more than if he denied there was a recovery at all.	The argument that "it is fixed for their friends, for a few at the top of society" will niggle David Cameron and Osborne more than if he denied there was a recovery at all.
"A recovery for the few, not the many" is not a bad strapline if you are a Labour leader approaching an election, trying to make the political weather when a coalition set up to take Britain out of recession is able to use official figures to claim that it has done what it said on the tin.	"A recovery for the few, not the many" is not a bad strapline if you are a Labour leader approaching an election, trying to make the political weather when a coalition set up to take Britain out of recession is able to use official figures to claim that it has done what it said on the tin.
Miliband was making this speech against a difficult backdrop in more ways than one. He has been socking it to the unions by changing funding rules so that 6.5 million union members have to opt in to see their fees go to the party. His jokes were never going to raise the roof here but it was embarrassing that they fell completely flat. It was kind of tragic that he had to laugh at them himself because absolutely no one in the audience cracked a smile at his opening stand-up routine. Miliband laughed and laughed as he described Stanley as Red Ed. Oh please.	Miliband was making this speech against a difficult backdrop in more ways than one. He has been socking it to the unions by changing funding rules so that 6.5 million union members have to opt in to see their fees go to the party. His jokes were never going to raise the roof here but it was embarrassing that they fell completely flat. It was kind of tragic that he had to laugh at them himself because absolutely no one in the audience cracked a smile at his opening stand-up routine. Miliband laughed and laughed as he described Stanley as Red Ed. Oh please.
• Melissa Kite is a contributing editor at the Spectator	• Melissa Kite is a contributing editor at the Spectator
Neal Lawson: 'Labour can't be equidistant from capital and labour'	Neal Lawson: 'Labour can't be equidistant from capital and labour'
Miliband spoke without notes but did he speak with hope and a sense of direction? He always raises his game at these big set piece events – it's an important skill. The zero-hours restrictions were good. But questions remain. Why would millions of trade unionists join Labour when it is democratically hollowed out and when the best it is likely to do is offer austerity-lite policies? And how can he help to deliver responsible capitalism without helping to deliver stronger trade unions capable of holding capital to account? The next election is billed as the "living standards election" – but again wages will only go up when trade unions are able to push for a bigger share of profits.	Miliband spoke without notes but did he speak with hope and a sense of direction? He always raises his game at these big set piece events – it's an important skill. The zero-hours restrictions were good. But questions remain. Why would millions of trade unionists join Labour when it is democratically hollowed out and when the best it is likely to do is offer austerity-lite policies? And how can he help to deliver responsible capitalism without helping to deliver stronger trade unions capable of holding capital to account? The next election is billed as the "living standards election" – but again wages will only go up when trade unions are able to push for a bigger share of profits.
Labour has to recognise that it can't somehow be equidistant from capital and labour – fairness not favours in the New Labour formula. Instead it must recognise that it is its political duty to encourage and empower the renewal of the unions through laws, taxes, incentives and moral authority.	Labour has to recognise that it can't somehow be equidistant from capital and labour – fairness not favours in the New Labour formula. Instead it must recognise that it is its political duty to encourage and empower the renewal of the unions through laws, taxes, incentives and moral authority.