The unions say no to Miliband's funding plan. What next?

Labour suggests it will not impose the reform by changing the law with the Tories, but if the unions resist that may be the only option.

Ed Miliband's suggestion that trade unions should be required to ask their members whether they wish to donate to Labour hasn't gone down well with those who lead them. After Unite's Len McCluskey pre-emptively rejected the reform in an article for the Guardian, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes denounced Miliband on the Today programme, accusing him of "dog whistle politics". He noted that the opt-in system proposed by Miliband was a "very old fashioned idea" introduced by Tory prime minister Stanley Baldwin under the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, which the 1945 Labour government repealed. In his Guardian piece, McCluskey wrote 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."

The question now is how Miliband will respond. The party is briefing that it will not impose the new system through a change in the law, with the expectation being that the unions will introduce it voluntarily. But as Hayes and McCluskey's words show, it will have trouble persuading them to do so. CCHQ has gleefully responded by describing the opt-in proposal as "dead in the water", noting that "He [Miliband] admitted that Labour wouldn't force it on the unions-but McCluskey has already said no."

Intriguingly, however, Miliband's PPS Jonathan Reynolds has just told Sky News that McCluskey is a "little bit more supportive than that quote might suggest". He had better be right. If Miliband fails to reach agreement with the unions and then recoils from changing the law with the Tories, his epitaph will be "weak". 

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron can win - but so can Marine Le Pen

Macron is the frontrunner, but he remains vulnerable to an upset. 

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is campaigning in the sixth largest French city aka London today. He’s feeling buoyed by polls showing not only that he is consolidating his second place but that the voters who have put him there are increasingly comfortable in their choice

But he’ll also be getting nervous that those same polls show Marine Le Pen increasing her second round performance a little against both him and François Fillon, the troubled centre-right candidate. Her slight increase, coming off the back of riots after the brutal arrest of a 22-year-old black man and Macron’s critical comments about the French empire in Algeria is a reminder of two things: firstly the potential for domestic crisis or terror attack to hand Le Pen a late and decisive advantage.  Secondly that Macron has not been doing politics all that long and the chance of a late implosion on his part cannot be ruled out either.

That many of his voters are former supporters of either Fillon or the Socialist Party “on holiday” means that he is vulnerable should Fillon discover a sense of shame – highly unlikely but not impossible either – and quit in favour of a centre-right candidate not mired in scandal. And if Benoît Hamon does a deal with Jean-Luc Mélenchon – slightly more likely that Fillon developing a sense of shame but still unlikely – then he could be shut out of the second round entirely.

What does that all mean? As far as Britain is concerned, a Macron or Fillon presidency means the same thing: a French government that will not be keen on an easy exit for the UK and one that is considerably less anti-Russian than François Hollande’s. But the real disruption may be in the PR battle as far as who gets the blame if Theresa May muffs Brexit is concerned.

As I’ve written before, the PM doesn’t like to feed the beast as far as the British news cycle and the press is concerned. She hasn’t cultivated many friends in the press and much of the traditional rightwing echo chamber, from the press to big business, is hostile to her. While Labour is led from its leftmost flank, that doesn’t much matter. But if in the blame game for Brexit, May is facing against an attractive, international centrist who shares much of the prejudices of May’s British critics, the hope that the blame for a bad deal will be placed solely on the shoulders of the EU27 may turn out to be a thin hope indeed.

Implausible? Don’t forget that people already think that Germany is led by a tough operator who gets what she wants, and think less of David Cameron for being regularly outmanoeuvered by her – at least, that’s how they see it. Don’t rule out difficulties for May if she is seen to be victim to the same thing from a resurgent France.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.