Ed Miliband waits in front of his office at Portcullis House for the arrival of German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on February 03, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour backs Miliband's party reforms by 86% - but the really hard work begins now

After today's comfortable victory, far greater political and financial challenges lie ahead for the party.

Labour's Special Conference has just voted in favour of Ed Miliband's party reforms by an overwhelming majority: 86.29% to 13.71%. Party affiliates (trade unions and socialist societies) voted in favour by 48.42% to 1.58%  and constituency party delegates by 37.87% to 12.13% (some London CLPs, in particular, were angered by the decision to use a closed primary to select Labour's London mayoral candidate). Given the concern that the changes initially provoked, on the left and the right of the party, the result is no small achievement. Shrewd party management by Miliband, Ray Collins (who led the review) and Simon Fletcher (Miliband's trade union liaison manager) ensured that this wasn't the bloodbath that the media wanted.

But for Labour, as Miliband knows, the really hard work begins now. The party's future financial health now depends on its ability to persuade trade union levy payers to opt into donating (their affiliation fees are currently automatically transferred by union general secretaries). If Miliband is to achieve his stated ambition to build a "movement" and to revitalise Labour, he will also need thousands of workers to choose to become associate members.

The other challenge will be managing relations between the party and the union general secretaries. As early as Wednesday, when Unite's executive meets, Len McCluskey is expected to announce that the party's largest donor is reducing its affiliation fees to Labour by £1.5m to reflect the fact that almost half of its levy payers do not support the party. With the GMB, Labour's third largest union affiliate, already having cut its funding by £1.05m, the changes could have cost the party £2.55m by next week. In total, Labour sources estimate that the reforms will cost it 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).

The hope and expectation among Labour figures is that the unions will make up the shortfall through one-off donations (which are not affected by the reforms) to ensure that the party is in fighting shape for the general election. With only a minority of levy payers like to opt-in, the unions will be left with a surplus in their political funds. But the complication for Labour is that theysare unlikely to hand this money over without demanding something in return.

As McCluskey said in his speech to Unite following Miliband's announcement of the changes last summer, he will no longer tolerate those who "welcome our money but don't want our policy input" and expects Unite to have "enhanced" influence under the new system because "our voice and our votes are looked at as legitimate". On another occasion, he told the Guardian that while he was not "looking to bankrupt the party", future funding would depend on "the policies Labour themselves are adopting, and in the context of whether we would give donations that would be determined by my executive and my political committees. It is a collective decision".

McCluskey's policy wishlist includes an end to public spending cuts, the repeal of the benefit cap, and the building of a million extra homes. The challenge for Miliband will be adopting policies radical enough to appease the unions while also ensuring Labour sticks to its tough deficit reduction targets. Far greater battles than today lie ahead.

Here's the speech Miliband delivered after the result was announced by Angela Eagle, the shadow leader of the House of Commons and the chair of the NEC:

Well friends, first of all, thank you.

You know, I took a big risk last July but I did it because I believed, and I believe today that we can only face up to the big challenges that our country faces if we face up to the challenges in our party.

That is what we have done today and we should all be proud of the Labour party that has shown the courage to change.


I just want to say one thing very directly to the country.

Some of you left us at the last general election.

Some of you thought we lost touch.

You were right.

These changes agreed today are designed to ensure that this party never loses touch again with the British people.

And now, the vote to change our party has been won.

The fight to change our country is just beginning.

So let’s go out and fight for the young people who need a job.

Let’s go out and fight for disabled people paying the bedroom tax today in our country.

Let’s go out and fight for all the low paid workers facing a cost of living crisis.

Let’s go out and fight for those families who need better childcare.

Let’s go out and fight for the small businesses people who need someone on their side.

And let’s go out and fight for the future of our National Health Service.

Above all, let’s go out and fight with every fibre of our being for the future of this country.

It’s in our hands.

We know Britain can be better than this.

Let’s go out and prove it.

Let’s go out and win.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA