GMB head feigns innocence over £1m Labour funding cut

Paul Kenny claims he's just doing what Miliband wants but his move was an unambiguous vote of no confidence in the Labour leader's reforms.

GMB general secretary Paul Kenny chose to feign innocence when he arrived at Portcullis House for his meeting with Ed Miliband earlier today, the day after his union announced that it was cutting its affiliation fees to Labour from £1.2m to £150,000. "What's all the fuss over? All we're doing, if you like, is going towards what Ed says he wants," he remarked

But as Kenny knows, the objection is that he has pre-emptively disaffiliated 88% of the union's political levy-payers from Labour, rather than trying to persuade more to sign up once an opt-in system is introduced. It was an unambiguous vote of no confidence in Miliband's reforms.

In its statement yesterday, the GMB, the third-largest union, also warned of "further reductions in spending on Labour party campaigns and initiatives". For Labour, which relies on large one-off donations from the unions to fund its general election campaigns, it was an ominous threat. 

Privately, however, some in the party are more sanguine. They regard Kenny's move as a negotiating tactic designed to deter Miliband from reducing the unions' voting power in leadership elections and at party conferences. The GMB is not due to implement the funding cut until January, leaving Miliband wtih time to reach an agreement. But the dilemma is already becoming clear: does Miliband pursue comprehensive change and risk losing even more funding, or does he compromise and risk being accused of bottling reform? 

 

A GMB member protests outside parliament over cuts to public sector pensions. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496