Why Miliband's union reforms are bigger than Clause IV

While the rewriting of Clause IV by Blair was of largely symbolic significance, the changes proposed by Miliband would have dramatic consequences for Labour's funding.

I was just asked by BBC News whether the reforms proposed by Ed Miliband to the Labour-union link could be compared to Tony Blair's rewriting of Clause IV in 1994. My response? Yes, but they're bigger.

While Blair's decision to revise Clause IV, which committed Labour to "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange", was of immense symbolic significance it changed little in practice. Labour had already effectively abandoned wholesale nationalisation and no one would have expected Blair to pursue this policy as prime minister. 

By contrast, the changes proposed by Miliband, most notably the introduction of an opt-in system for trade union members' donations, will have dramatic consequences for Labour. As I revealed earlier, the party estimates that it could lose as much as £5m of the £8m it currently receives in affiliation fees. The hope is that this reform will force the Tories to agree to party funding reform, including a £5,000 cap on individual donations, but it remains the biggest gamble of Miliband's leadership. It's for that reason that Blair himself was so fulsome in his praise this morning. 

Ed Miliband attends the launch of mental health charity MindFull on 5 July, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

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