Miliband's gamble on union funding could cost Labour millions - but it is one he had to take

If the Labour leader is to be a consistent supporter of democracy and transparency, he cannot defend a system that allows unions to donate millions from their members without permission.

Ed Miliband's decision to support a new opt-in system of trade union funding for Labour is by some distance the biggest gamble he has taken since becoming party leader. At present, members of affiliated unions merely have the right to opt-out of paying the political levy (a portion of which goes to Labour) but under the new system they would be required to give their explicit consent. This reform, as I argued yesterday, is entirely necessary if Miliband is to be a consistent supporter of democracy and transparency.

At present, of the 15 unions affiliated to Labour, Unison is the only one to allow new members to choose whether or not they contribute to the party when they sign up. Only two others, the Musicians’ Union and USDAW, mention the existence of a political fund (but do not mention Labour) and six affiliated unions, including Unite and the GMB, don’t mention Labour at all on either the "about us" or membership sections of their website. As a result, while all members have the right to opt-out of paying the levy, it is far from easy for them to do so (just 10 per cent do) and many will not even be aware of its existence. It is this arrangement that allows the Tories to argue that unions such as Unite (just 37.5 per cent of whose members vote Labour) dupe workers into subsidising the party.

In his speech tomorrow, Miliband will say:

I do not want any individual to be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so. I believe we need people to be able to make a more active, individual, choice on whether they affiliate to the Labour Party.

But while this move will do much to enhance his reformist credentials, it could prove to be the most costly decision he ever takes. Labour currently receives around £8m a year in affiliation fees from 2.7 million levy-payers, but this total is likely to fall dramatically if members are required to opt-in; one party source told me that he estimated that it would cost Labour as much as £5m. In addition, as Mark Ferguson points out, if only hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of trade unionists choose to become affiliates it will be harder for the unions to justify remaining affiliated at all.

Set against this are the political benefits Miliband will reap. An opt-in system will make it easier to justify exempting union affiliation fees from the £5,000 cap on donations previously proposed by Labour on the grounds that they should be treated as an aggregate of individual members' contributions, rather than as one lump sum. As a Labour source told me: "It will allow us to frame the Tories as the party of big money and us as the party of millions of working people." (Although, as I noted above, the danger is that nothing like "millions" will affiliate.) The Conservatives' resistance to party funding reform will look more self-interested than ever.

Requiring trade unionists to opt-in will also force unions to make a more explicit and positive case for supporting Labour, with the possibility of much greater individual engagement with the party. In the 2010 leadership election, turnout among trade unionists was just 9 per cent, with 15 per cent of ballots spoilt, in most cases because workers failed to state that they agreed with "the aims and values" of the party.

What remains unclear is how the new system will be introduced. Labour is briefing that it does not favour a change in the law, with the expectation being that unions will introduce the measure voluntarily. But in an article for today's Guardian, Len McCluskey comes out strongly against the reform, writing that it would "require Labour to unite with the Tories to change the law, would debilitate unions' ability to speak for our members and would further undermine unions' status as voluntary, and self-governing, organisations." Other general secretaries are likely to be equally sceptical.

There will be many in Labour who hope that they prevail. And they have a point. The opt-in system should be supported as a matter of democratic principle but Labour has just sacrificed millions in funding and one of its key bargaining chips in party funding negotiations.

Miliband has calculated that he will derive greater benefit from taking the moral high ground and removing the stain of big money from the party. For Labour's sake, he had better be right. 

P.S. While the change to union funding is by far the most significant reform planned by Miliband, he will also use his speech this morning to announce that Labour will hold a primary to select its 2016 London mayoral candidate and in seats where the local party has few members or needs to be "re-energised".

In addition, he will promise to introduce a new code of conduct for those seeking parliamentary selection, a cap on spending by candidates and organisations operating on their behalf (including the unions) and standard constituency agreements with trade unions so that no one can be subjected to undue local pressure.

Ed Miliband makes a speech on the high street in Worcester town centre on April 25, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.