Minimising the influence of the trade unions and appealing to the vastness of middle-England? Sounds suspiciously like a cross-pollination of ThatcherÔÇÖs staunch pseudo-enterprising vehemence and BlairÔÇÖs everyman normality; not a bad way to look at politics, for those who are tired of ideology-driven politicians towing the party line. But when Ed Miliband is desperately trying to counter the aggressive scale of Conservative reform, particularly relating to welfare and education, whilst simultaneously attempting to stabilise internal party politics after a pretty hairy six months for Labour; initiating what could be election-rupturing party changes is perhaps not playing it safe.
Trade unions, such as Unite and UNISON, have always been the cornerstone of LabourÔÇÖs support-base. A working-class party for working-class people. Under the traditional Labour laws ascertaining to donations-cum-candidacy, the percentages of who-gets-to-select-who to run in elections are quite fair. One third of the votes come from the unions. One third from MPs/MEPs. And one third from party members. This has proven to work harmoniously enough, even during the early years of New Labour when party selection became increasingly internalised, and this is what Ed Miliband is apparently turning on its head. The proposed changes, involving a ÔÇÿone member, one voteÔÇÖ system replacing the typically draconian bias on the union portion of the votes, have been described by Mr Miliband as ÔÇ£the right principle for the 21st CenturyÔÇØ. If the plans go ahead being merely ÔÇÿaffiliatedÔÇÖ with a union will no longer guarantee a member the right to participate in leadership contests; those belonging to a union will have to ÔÇÿdouble opt-inÔÇÖ, paying an additional ┬ú3 for the privilege of voting for their desired candidate. Add to this the proposal that only full-party members (not merely those union-affiliated) can choose parliamentary/council candidates, and it seems to point to Mr MilibandÔÇÖs focus on ÔÇ£the voices of the individualsÔÇØ in order to ÔÇ£make big change in our partyÔÇØ, which could be deciphered as ÔÇÿcurbing the union leadersÔÇÖ and ÔÇÿgearing up the electorate for 2015ÔÇÖ.
The Unite ÔÇÿscandalÔÇÖ that characterised LabourÔÇÖs press coverage last summer has undoubtedly and inexorably altered the landscape of LabourÔÇÖs internal party politics, even after no evidence of wrongdoing was purported to have taken place. The supposed incident, involving vote-rigging in the selection of a Labour candidate in Falkirk by Unite, dealt a hammer-blow to already ailing support for Mr Miliband, in a summer of body shots to prominent politicians that included David CameronÔÇÖs mauling at the hands of Parliament over Syria. However, as the summer recess ended and politicians got back to, ahem, politics, he seemed to shrug off the ghosts of June/July and get back to placing the Tories in the firing line with repetitions of ÔÇ£the cost-of-living-crisisÔÇØ and ÔÇ£the squeezed middleÔÇØ. Such sentiments were well-timed, with George OsborneÔÇÖs further budget cuts providing yet more platforms for Mr Miliband and Labour to protest that the ConservativeÔÇÖs economic policies were steering Britain into, if you believe Ed BallsÔÇÖ hype, easily avoidable fiscal turbulence. The question is; why is Ed Miliband stirring the honey pot now? And with such a provocative gesture, which many will undoubtedly see as a fair way of regulating the internal politics of the party, equalled only by the countless others interpreting the changes as bad faith in LabourÔÇÖs ties with the unions?
The power that the unions and their leaders have on Labour party politics is not confined to the row over Falkirk. ┬ú8 million in affiliation fees are collected by the party on behalf of the trade unions; far more than the total donations of its estimated 180,000 party members (averaging ┬ú5 per person). They ballot their own members when an election is called; limiting the informative range of literature on available candidates, and the worry from inside the Labour front bench will surely now be on whether Ed Miliband can survive the hostility this measure will elicit from inside the core of the unions. After David Miliband lost out to his younger brother in the previous leadership election, it was said that some unions sent disparaging literature about Miliband the Elder to their own balloted members. In this vein, one can see Miliband the YoungerÔÇÖs motivations. Giving the importance and the integrity of voting privileges back to the members of the party, unionised or otherwise, in an attempt to eschew powerful union leaders such as Len McCluskey from unduly influencing Labour policy, is the kind of political altruism that we rarely, if ever, see in modern politics. Especially considering the financial implications of what he is proposing. But let us consider former Labour leaders such as Blair, Smith and Kinnock, all of whom said they avidly supported the ÔÇÿone member, one voteÔÇÖ policy. Yet none of them implemented it. If this is to be MilibandÔÇÖs great party reform, streamlining and modernising Labour as a precursor for doing the same with the country-one can only wonder if these reasons will ring true for the fathomless swathes of supporters who, in the wake of Falkirk and LabourÔÇÖs other issues, still struggle to see him as anything other than politically reactive, unable to reign in the unions or indeed placate them. Perhaps the only thing to take away at this juncture is that the party certainly has a long way to go before internal machinations give way to the polished, proactive Labour Mr Miliband has been promising.
Jon Chapman
Add Comment