Ed Miliband delivers his speech on the Labour- trade union link at The St Bride Foundation in London last July. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Ed Miliband interview - on the trade unions, party funding and Arnie Graf

The Labour leader says "there’s a big, big contrast between us as an expanding party and the Tories".

On Saturday, Labour will hold its Special Conference on Ed Miliband’s party reforms, an event that was originally anticipated as a make-or-break moment for his leadership. But happily for Miliband, there’ll be no need for a John Prescott-style figure to plead with the trade unions to back him at the eleventh hour. After being approved by 28 votes to two on the NEC, the reforms are likely to be overwhelmingly endorsed when the party gathers at the Excel Centre in London (one Labour source predicts a 75-80 per cent vote in favour). Given the anxiety that they initially provoked, on both the left and the right of the party, this is no small achievement.

Ahead of the conference, Miliband has been holding meetings with party members to outline the vision behind the changes, the latest being in Leeds last Friday. Speaking at the West Yorkshire Playhouse, accompanied by Rachel Reeves, Miliband was in confident form, contrasting the potential for Labour to once again become a “mass movement”, with the Tories (“a party for a few at the top with a declining membership”) and with the Lib Dems, who, he quipped, “are thinking of hiring a telephone box for their next party meeting - if the telephone box will have them”.

After Miliband had finished taking questions from members, I did a short interview with him about the reforms and their implications for the party. I began by asking him why he waited nearly three years after his election as Labour leader before making the changes. He told me:

On why the reforms weren't made earlier

Look, change is difficult. I think as you’ve seen from some people’s reaction in the early stages, people always say, and reading back on the history of Clause IV, which I’ve been doing a bit, preparing for my speech at the Special Conference, people said at the time: ‘this is a distraction, we should be fighting the Tories, we shouldn’t be talking about these issues.’ It’s always hard to make this the biggest priority. Frankly, I think we saw big problems in Falkirk and I, instead of saying we’re just going to ignore the problems and hope they go away, thought ‘what does this tell us to do in terms of bigger reform of the party?’ and I think it’s been right to use that moment to embark on big reform and I’m hopeful that we’ll get it through on 1 March.

He spoke hopefully of attracting “another 200,000 registered supporters and affiliated supporters”, more than doubling Labour’s current membership of 187,537. He added: “It’s important that Labour Party members understand this point, that isn’t just about some big number of 400,000. That is about doubling the membership of each Constituency Labour Party. Now, if I think about my own Constituency Labour Party, that would make a massive difference, having not 350 people, but 700 people, that is a big deal that we’re talking about. It’s about that big change and the big change on the ground.”

On how large the financial hit will be 

If the potential benefits of the reforms are clear, so are the potential costs. Labour sources estimate that the decision to require trade unionists to opt-in to donating to the party, rather than having their payments automatically transferred by general secretaries, will cost Labour at least £4m (if half of the current 2.7 million levy-payers opt-in) and as much as £7m (if 10 per cent do). When I asked Miliband how large he expects the funding hit to be, he replied:

That is dependent on us. That is dependent on our ability to persuade people to be part of the party, to pay their affiliation fee, to positively consent to that in the first instance, and to be part of the party. That is a joint responsibility on the trade unions and the Labour Party to reach out to people. But we’re phasing it in over five years, that’s the right thing to do, it’s commonly consented to be the right thing to do, very few people now argue against that change, I think it’s been accepted. I think it can also make us more solid financially, in a way, because we will have people who are actually properly affiliated supporters of the party, in local parties, who can become members of the party. You shouldn’t just stop at being an affiliated supporter, you want people to go from being registered supporters, affiliated supporters to being members.

On the GMB's decision to cut its funding by £1m

I asked him whether he was disappointed that the GMB, Labour’s third largest union affiliate, had pre-emptively reduced its funding from £1.2m to £150,000, rather than seeking to persuade as many members as possible to opt-in to Labour membership.

I just think that’s one of those things. When change happens, people find it uncomfortable and I understand some of the reasons for that. Change is never easy, particularly in a political party, because things have been done in a certain way for a long time. I actually think, if you look at the debate in the last few months, right across the party, the unions, socialist societies and others, people have handled it in an incredibly mature way. People’s fear was we’re going to spend seven months talking about ourselves, we haven’t done that. We’ve talked about the bedroom tax, the 50p tax, the energy price freeze, all of those things, I think we’ve taken it in our stride, it’s been difficult for some people, and I understand the reasons for that, but I think the party’s behaved in an incredibly mature way.

On the importance of Arnie Graf 

One of the key figures behind Miliband’s ambition to make Labour a “movement” is Arnie Graf, the godfather of community organising and a mentor of the young Barack Obama, who was appointed by Labour to train activists in the campaigning methods he pioneered in Chicago. But the American is not universally admired in the party, with some recently raising questions over his immigration status (via a story in the Sun) in an attempt to damage his position (and that of one of his allies, Labour general secretary Ian MacNicol). Miliband, however, was fulsome in his praise for Graf:

The really interesting thing about Arnie is, if you go round and talk to our organisers and our candidates, they are the people who’ve had the most exposure to him and who are the most positive about the role he’s playing. They say ‘he opened my eyes to doing politics in a different way’, to reaching out to people, to the way we make policy, to the way we engage people, to not just being seven people in a drizzle, but expanding our base, all of that. I think he’s got a very important role to play and I think he’s a great influence.

He ended by telling me: "The key thing about this is it’s about people from every walk of life: working people, ambulance drivers, NHS workers, flood workers, engineers, shop workers, entrepreneurs, small business people, who can be registered supporters and part of this, it’s about an expanding party and I think there’s a big, big contrast between us as an expanding party and the Tories a party, increasingly, of a narrow elite and of a smaller number of people."

On electoral reform: "not the answer to disengagement"

One other answer worth noting, from the Q&A with members, was on electoral reform. Miliband was asked about the possibility of Labour supporting proportional representation and replied that "electoral reform is not the answer to disengagement with politics". He also noted the decisive result of the AV referendum and that the issue had divided Labour.

Expect the desirability, or not, of electoral reform to be one of the main dividing lines between Labour and the Lib Dems at the election. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Tinder dating app isn't just about sex – it's about friendship, too. And sex

The lines between sex, love and friendship are blurrier than ever, as I found out quickly while using the app.

The first time I met someone using Tinder, the free dating app that requires users to swipe left for “no” and right for “yes” before enabling new “matches” to chat, it was an unqualified success. I should probably qualify that. I was newly single after five years in a committed relationship and wasn’t looking for anything more than fun, friendship and, well, who knows. A few weeks earlier I had tried to give my number to a girl in a cinema café in Brixton. I wrote it on a postcard I’d been using as a bookmark. She said she had a boyfriend, but wanted to keep the postcard. I had no date and I lost my page.

My Tinder date was a master’s student from Valencia called Anna (her name wasn’t really Anna, of course, I’m not a sociopath). When I arrived at the appointed meeting place, she told me I was far more handsome IRL (“in real life”) than my pictures suggested. I was flattered and full of praise for the directness of continental Europeans but also thought sadly to myself: “If only the same could be said about you.”

Anna and I became friends, at least for a while. The date wasn’t a success in the traditional sense of leading us into a contract based on exclusivity, an accumulating cache of resentments and a mortgage, but it had put me back in the game (an appropriate metaphor – people speak regularly of “playing” with the app).

According to Sean Rad, the co-founder who launched Tinder in late 2012, the service was invented for people like me. “It was really a way to overcome my own problems,” he told the editor of Cosmopolitan at an event in London last month. “It was weird to me, to start a conversation [with a stranger]. Once I had an introduction I was fine, but it’s that first step. It’s difficult for a lot of people.” After just one outing, I’d learned two fundamental lessons about the world of online dating: pretty much everyone has at least one decent picture of themselves, and meeting women using a so-called hook-up app is seldom straightforwardly about sex.

Although sometimes it is. My second Tinder date took place in Vienna. I met Louisa (ditto, name) outside some notable church or other one evening while visiting on holiday (Tinder tourism being, in my view, a far more compelling way to get to know a place than a cumbersome Lonely Planet guide). We drank cocktails by the Danube and rambled across the city before making the romantic decision to stay awake all night, as she had to leave early the next day to go hiking with friends. It was just like the Richard Linklater movie Before Sunrise – something I said out loud more than a few times as the Aperol Spritzes took their toll.

When we met up in London a few months later, Louisa and I decided to skip the second part of Linklater’s beautiful triptych and fast-track our relationship straight to the third, Before Midnight, which takes place 18 years after the protagonists’ first meet in Vienna, and have begun to discover that they hate each others’ guts.

Which is one of the many hazards of the swiping life: unlike with older, web-based platforms such as Match.com or OkCupid, which require a substantial written profile, Tinder users know relatively little about their prospective mates. All that’s necessary is a Facebook account and a single photograph. University, occupation, a short bio and mutual Facebook “likes” are optional (my bio is made up entirely of emojis: the pizza slice, the dancing lady, the stack of books).

Worse still, you will see people you know on Tinder – that includes colleagues, neighbours and exes – and they will see you. Far more people swipe out of boredom or curiosity than are ever likely to want to meet up, in part because swiping is so brain-corrosively addictive.

While the company is cagey about its user data, we know that Tinder has been downloaded over 100 million times and has produced upwards of 11 billion matches – though the number of people who have made contact will be far lower. It may sound like a lot but the Tinder user-base remains stuck at around the 50 million mark: a self-selecting coterie of mainly urban, reasonably affluent, generally white men and women, mostly aged between 18 and 34.

A new generation of apps – such as Hey! Vina and Skout – is seeking to capitalise on Tinder’s reputation as a portal for sleaze, a charge Sean Rad was keen to deny at the London event. Tinder is working on a new iteration, Tinder Social, for groups of friends who want to hang out with other groups on a night out, rather than dating. This makes sense for a relatively fresh business determined to keep on growing: more people are in relationships than out of them, after all.

After two years of using Tinder, off and on, last weekend I deleted the app. I had been visiting a friend in Sweden, and took it pretty badly when a Tinder date invited me to a terrible nightclub, only to take a few looks at me and bolt without even bothering to fabricate an excuse. But on the plane back to London the next day, a strange thing happened. Before takeoff, the woman sitting beside me started crying. I assumed something bad had happened but she explained that she was terrified of flying. Almost as terrified, it turned out, as I am. We wound up holding hands through a horrific patch of mid-air turbulence, exchanged anecdotes to distract ourselves and even, when we were safely in sight of the ground, a kiss.

She’s in my phone, but as a contact on Facebook rather than an avatar on a dating app. I’ll probably never see her again but who knows. People connect in strange new ways all the time. The lines between sex, love and friendship are blurrier than ever, but you can be sure that if you look closely at the lines, you’ll almost certainly notice the pixels.

Philip Maughan is Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad