Miliband’s reforms raise more questions than answers

Why “party supporters” should have no say over the Labour leadership.

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.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496