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prime minister Stanley Baldwin under the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, which the 1945 Labour government repealed.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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.