McCluskey shows how Miliband's reforms will increase his bargaining power

With Labour more reliant on large one-off donations from unions, the Unite general secretary is in a stronger position to push for policy changes.

Ed Miliband's decision to introduce a new opt-in system for donations to Labour from members of affiliated trade unions was spun as a move to reduce the power of union general secretaries but in his interview in today's Guardian, Len McCluskey shows why it could achieve the reverse. 

With the party likely to lose around 90% of the £8m it currently receives in affiliation fees (Miliband aims to recruit 300,000 of the 3 million political levy payers to Labour), it will likely fall to unions like Unite to make up the shortfall through separate donations from their political funds (which are unaffected by Miliband's plan). And this, as McCluskey signals, has increased his bargaining power. He tells the Guardian that he is not "looking to bankrupt the party" but adds that future funding will depend on "the policies Labour themselves are adopting, and in the context of whether we would give donations that would be determined by my executive and my political committees. It is a collective decision". His wishlist includes the repeal of the bedroom tax, a rejection of the benefit cap, a break with "austerity spending", 1m extra homes and a £1.50 increase in the minimum wage.

Depending on your political persuasion, McCluskey's increased power may be viewed as no bad thing (all of the policies I listed above are ones Labour should support) but it leaves Miliband vulnerable to the Conservative charge that his party is more dependent on the "union barons" than ever and undermines his pledge to take big money out of politics.

It's for this reason that the Labour leader desperately needs a deal on party funding reform. His proposed donation cap of £5,000 would apply to unions as well as individuals, eliminating any danger that McCluskey and others could hold the party to ransom. But while Miliband has removed one obstacle to a deal by promising to introduce an opt-in system, the Tories and the Lib Dems want him to go much further. As Nick Clegg outlined following Miliband's speech, he would like the political levy to be reformed so that union members are given the choice to donate to other parties. After all, as McCluskey concedes in the interview, Unite's own internal polling demonstrates that "a large chunk" of his members vote for parties other than Labour (the union's June 2013 political report stated "We can estimate that around 35-40% of our members voted Labour at the last election, with around 50-55% voting.")

Whether Miliband is prepared to go this far, at least without significant concessions from the coalition parties, remains unclear, but without a deal he could face an unpalatable choice between "bankruptcy" or another trade union bail-out. 

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexit could destroy our NHS – and it would be the government's own fault

Without EU citizens, the health service will be short of 20,000 nurses in a decade.

Aneurin Bevan once said: "Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community."

And so, in 1948, the National Health Service was established. But today, the service itself seems to be on life support and stumbling towards a final and fatal collapse.

It is no secret that for years the NHS has been neglected and underfunded by the government. But Brexit is doing the NHS no favours either.

In addition to the promise of £350m to our NHS every week, Brexit campaigners shamefully portrayed immigrants, in many ways, as as a burden. This is quite simply not the case, as statistics have shown how Britain has benefited quite significantly from mass EU migration. The NHS, again, profited from large swathes of European recruitment.

We are already suffering an overwhelming downturn in staffing applications from EU/EAA countries due to the uncertainty that Brexit is already causing. If the migration of nurses from EEA countries stopped completely, the Department of Health predicts the UK would have a shortage of 20,000 nurses by 2025/26. Some hospitals have significantly larger numbers of EU workers than others, such as Royal Brompton in London, where one in five workers is from the EU/EAA. How will this be accounted for? 

Britain’s solid pharmaceutical industry – which plays an integral part in the NHS and our everyday lives – is also at risk from Brexit.

London is the current home of the highly prized EU regulatory body, the European Medicine Agency, which was won by John Major in 1994 after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

The EMA is tasked with ensuring that all medicines available on the EU market are safe, effective and of high quality. The UK’s relationship with the EMA is unquestionably vital to the functioning of the NHS.

As well as delivering 900 highly skilled jobs of its own, the EMA is associated with 1,299 QPPV’s (qualified person for pharmacovigilance). Various subcontractors, research organisations and drug companies have settled in London to be close to the regulatory process.

The government may not be able to prevent the removal of the EMA, but it is entirely in its power to retain EU medical staff. 

Yet Theresa May has failed to reassure EU citizens, with her offer to them falling short of continuation of rights. Is it any wonder that 47 per cent of highly skilled workers from the EU are considering leaving the UK in the next five years?

During the election, May failed to declare how she plans to increase the number of future homegrown nurses or how she will protect our current brilliant crop of European nurses – amounting to around 30,000 roles.

A compromise in the form of an EFTA arrangement would lessen the damage Brexit is going to cause to every single facet of our NHS. Yet the government's rhetoric going into the election was "no deal is better than a bad deal". 

Whatever is negotiated with the EU over the coming years, the NHS faces an uncertain and perilous future. The government needs to act now, before the larger inevitable disruptions of Brexit kick in, if it is to restore stability and efficiency to the health service.

0800 7318496