Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSMiliband’s reforms raise more questions than answers
Why “party supporters” should have no say over the Labour leadership.
By George Eaton Published 28 December 2010 10:51
They may have delivered him the crown but Ed Miliband isn't afraid of picking a fight with the trade unions. Today's Independent reports that the Labour leader is pushing for a cap on party donations of £500, significantly lower than the £50,000 proposed by David Cameron.
As part of Labour's evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the party's general secretary, Ray Collins, has said: "While some argue for a cap of £50,000, a much lower cap of around £500 would be more equitable, democratic and less susceptible to avoidance."
In tandem with this, Miliband is planning to reform Labour's electoral college by giving 25 per cent of the votes to non-party members who register as Labour supporters. This falls short of the one-member, one-vote system advocated by Alan Johnson but would still be the most significant reform since the introduction of the college in 1981. The MPs, affiliated trade unions and party members, who each enjoy a third of the vote, would be left with a quarter each.
But this reform, like the proposed cap on donations, raises more questions than answers. For a start, it creates a disincentive to party membership. One of the few reasons people still join political parties is to have some say (however small) over the leadership. Indeed, more than 30,000 people joined Labour during last summer's contest. The extension of the franchise to non-levy paying "party supporters" would surely prompt some to jump ship. Such a system would also be open to manipulation by political opponents. The supporters of the ill-fated "Conservatives for Balls" movement, for instance, would have leapt at the chance to vote.
The decision to come out against big donations also seems rather counter-intuitive for a party that was recently described by John Prescott as being on the "verge of bankruptcy". It was only big donations from the trade unions which ensured that Labour was able to run anything even resembling a general election campaign.
The brothers were responsible for 60 per cent (£9.8m) of all donations to the party last year, with Unite, Britain's biggest union, accounting for nearly 25 per cent (£3.6m). But combined with increased state funding (favoured by the Lib Dems), the reform could finally break the stranglehold of big money on British politics.
Miliband's stance challenges David Cameron, whose party remains reliant on a few lucrative donors, to take on the most vested interest of all. But on the electoral college, the Labour leader has a lot of convincing to do.
Tags: Ed Miliband Labour leadership
Related articles
George Eaton is editor of The Staggers blog
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Samira Shackle -
Ryan Gilbey -
Rebecca Stott -
Will Self -
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
20 comments
Grt news as this is how it shd be! At least attempt to reform is a huge relief! If we can get through we have done exactly what we won't fairnes!
Yes to State Funding and free Parties from the grasp of Big Business and Powerful Unions. politicians should not be in hock to either.
A resounding NO to State funding! My taxes funding The Tories and Lib Dems? Never!
Difficult for Parties to take on State Beaurocracy if they are directly funded by them...
As to Eds reforms, well I am not at all convinced - seems like a good way for those at the top to bypass the membership...
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com/
Clem the Gem is absolutely right!
Have to say yes to state funding its a no brainier in my eyes
One member, one vote and no to State funding. I am not contributing to parties I disagree with.
I think if state funding came in there would be a legal challenge somewhere along the line and parties such as the BNP would end up also qualifying for state funding.
Tighten up the Union vote so that one member really does only get one vote and can't vote six or seven times as a multiple union member and I think the system would be much better,more reflective of the ordinary member and less open to the perception that unions commission and then coronate a leader rather than the electoral college as a whole electing one.
Non party members should not be voting at all so let's shelve that particular political gimmick please Ed.
All I see in evidence here is an addition of needless further complexity to Labour's stupid electoral process, coupled with some posturing by proposing unworkably low donation caps.
If this is any kind of window on how EdM works out policy more generally, then we are screwed.
Sad that George has to artifically inject the idea of state funding into this piece to give EdM's idea some semblance of sense.
How much did the Millibands take in donations for the Leadership from Sainsbury,Noone and the rest of the Neo Liberals running the Labour Party?
If Milliband wants to enhance Democracy he should start with Labours internal democracy which is non existent. The Vatican has more Democratic procedures than gutless Labour. Yet these Labour Nabobs, like Lord Prescott and Lady Kinnock, attack the Trade Unions Democracy, which whilst imperfect at least has some flicker of life in it.
Milliband like Obama is going to be all presentation and behind the redwash another Corporate stooge
Labours now a right wing Neo Liberal Party. The Labour party and its , rapidly decomposing,gutless membership laid the foundations for the Con Dems cuts and Privatisations.
Hutton is dismantling public sector pensions whilst Field is writing the Post Modern Poor Laws for Thatcherites.
Labour front bencher are on many issues to the right of the Government
Chomsky said in the NS interview we have one business party with two factions.In the UK we have one Tory Party with three factions.
Roll on Democracy
http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2010/12/party-funding-sidelining-of-lab...
Sigh about the party supporters idea, it's like so 1990s.
If he can bring in OMOV then he'll have done the Party a great service. Unfortuntely, Ed is not prime ministerial material and may suffer the same fate as Kinnock.
Still dont see how the funding idea would ac tually work, whos going to collect the money ?
Ed Milliband should forget about gimmicks and restore real democracy to party members - such as letting us choose party leaders again. We did not get a say on Gordon Brown becoming leader and the party payed dearly for it in the General Election.
Milliband should do what is right and not what Blair and Brown always did - i.e. anything which grabs good headlines. If you want to distance yourself from New Labour, Mr Milliband, you can start by reducing the role of spin in the party, try and speak with honesty, and genuinely give members a role and avoid running the party as top down, out of touch, and seems to be only concerned with power. Unless, that is, you want to end up like Brown who gave our party the second lowest vote for almost 100 years.
What's wrong with actual one-member-one-vote?
After all, indirectly it's already what we have. If the votes of Labour Party members, affiliated trade unions and MPs all counted equally, Ed Miliband won not by the fraction he did in the electoral college, but by thousands of votes.
Also, about state funding, wasn't there a pretty well respected report done a few years ago by some campaign group saying that every year each eligible voter should be able to donate 10 quid of the state's money to the party of their choice. Sounds reasonable.
But Conservatives For Balls could have just joined the Labour party and voted. We didn't, probably because there was this nagging doubt at the back of our heads: "if this works and one day he inexplicably becomes Prime Minister, we'll only have ourselves to blame."
Nice to see Saltley Gates giving us the
SWP version of history. Left out the GULAGs though...
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com/
Labour's front bench aren't exactly short of wealth and privilege. We find ourselves with trade union leaders who pay themselves bosses wages calling for class-war. A posh middle-class Marxist as leader who's never done a real job in his short inexperienced life, telling us all he has all the answers. I honestly can't see a Labour revival in the short to medium term. In-fact with Labour's economic disaster still ringing in our ears it may take a generation for amnesia to return Labour to government.
Anne Applebaum. GULAG.. Read it and weep.
Post new comment