UK 9 July 2013 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. Sign up for our weekly email * Print HTML 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. › Tony Blair on Ed Miliband's union link proposals: "I should have done it when I was leader" 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. Subscribe from just £1 per issue More Related articles How the Democratic National Committee Chair contest became a proxy war Sooner or later, a British university is going to go bankrupt Commons confidential: Old friend or foe?