Why Miliband should support an opt-in system for trade union donations

It would give greater legitimacy to Labour funding and force trade unions to make a positive case for supporting the party.

Ahead of Ed Miliband's speech tomorrow on the Labour-union link, one change rightly under discussion within the shadow cabinet is reforming the funding system so that members of affiliated unions are required to opt-in to paying the political levy (a portion of which goes to Labour, with the remainder spent on campaigning and other causes), rather than having to opt-out. 

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. 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 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 not easy for them to do so 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 their members into subsidising Labour.

In recent party funding talks, Labour has opposed an opt-in system, principally due to concern that it would lead to a fall in donations (the party receives around £8m a year in affiliation fees). But if Ed Miliband's support for transparency and accountability is to be consistent, it can no longer do so. (Similarly, shareholders should be required to give approval to company donations to the Conservatives and other parties.) In a post last year on Labour List defending the opt-out system, Luke Akehurst pointed out that workers could join a non-affiliated union, that they are balloted every 10 years on whether to maintain a political fund and that they can bring disaffiliation motions to their union conferences. All of which is true, but hardly represents a model of transparency. 

But as well as right in principle, an opt-in system would have political benefits for Labour. It would make it easier to justify exempting union affiliation fees from the £5,000 cap on donations proposed by Miliband on the grounds that they should be treated as an aggregate of individual members' contributions, rather than as one lump sum, removing one of the stumbling blocks to cross-party agreement. As a Labour source told me: "It would allow us to frame the Tories as the party of big money and us as the party of millions of working people." 

Requiring trade unionists to opt-in would also force unions to make a more explicit and positive case for supporting Labour, with the possibility of greater 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. Partly for this reason, another reform under consideration is to make those who pay the political levy full members of the party, rather than merely affiliated ones. At a stroke, this would dramatically increase Labour's total membership (around three million pay the political levy) and would make it impossible for the Tories to dismiss trade unionists as the plaything of the union "barons". It would be a logical continuation of the "one member, one vote" reforms introduced by John Smith in 1993. 

After the worst week of his leadership since 2010, Miliband needs to recast the relationship between the unions and the party and redefine the terms of debate in Labour's favour. These two reforms would be a good place to start. 

Ed Miliband addresses TUC members in Hyde Park at the end of a march in protest against the government's austerity measures. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.