Bobby Friedman

The inconvenient truth at the heart of Miliband’s union reforms

• 6 March 2014, 12:00am

• Text settings

  Text size

  • Small
  • Medium
  • Large

  Line Spacing

  • Compact
  • Normal
  • Spacious
• Comments
• Share

  Share

  Bobby Friedman

  The inconvenient truth at the heart of Miliband’s union reforms

  

  Copy link

  • Linkedin
  • Messenger
  • Email

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

• Weekly delivery of the magazine
• Unlimited access to our website and app
• Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
• Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

Most popular

Alexander Larman

What happened to the Rishi Sunak I knew at school?

That’s why Levy’s suggestion will hardly be welcomed by the Labour leader, because it demonstrates the hypocrisy of Miliband’s public pronouncements in the face of his fundraising tactics. The showdown with the unions may have thrown a spotlight on the corrupt nature of Labour’s links with the unions, where cash has led to a direct influence on policymaking at the NEC and the National Policy Forum, but at least it has provided cover for Labour’s attacks on the Conservatives.

Levy’s intervention shows the inconvenient truth at the heart of Miliband’s reforms. If the changes really are to put an end to Labour’s reliance on the unions, then the money will have to be found from somewhere else. Doing nothing simply wouldn’t be an option: if Labour were a European country, the state of its accounts would place it somewhere on the financial spectrum between Italy and Greece. Its net current liabilities stand at around £6 million, and that’s before the party faces up to the challenge of trying to find £10 or £20 million to pay for an election campaign in 2015. 40% of its income comes from donations and affiliation fees, so if the union cash really does disappear, then the party could go to the wall unless that black hole is filled by other means.

So, either the private donors will have to step in, or else Miliband must be confident enough that the unions will keep on paying. Given that the party has already been trying to encourage the super-rich to cough up, the inevitable conclusion is that the unions will continue to provide the financial support that Labour desperately needs. While affiliation fees may fall, the new arrangements will provide every opportunity for Labour to make up the gap with increased direct donations from the unions. This in turn gives more power to the General-Secretaries, not less.

The truth for Ed Miliband is not, as he maintains, that his party has distanced itself from the union movement, while remaining sceptical of the rich – in fact, he will continue to rely on them both.