Ed Miliband has never had it easy as leader, given the inherent difficulty of opposition, and I must admit that at times I have my doubts about where Labour is going. But this past week with the new party reform package, I once again saw the brave and bold side of him that I like to see - the same one who made clear our stance on spending last month, took on the tough issue of immigration before this year's council elections and gave that brilliant speech about One Nation last September.
Yes, opt-in payment from the unions could cost the party a large chunk of the £8-9 million it currently gets from them, if indeed the efforts to sign-up individual unionists in place fall short or if one rightist Labour MP's reported prediction that Ed's announcement will increase the party's ability to fund-raise from the private sector (or perhaps Obama-style from small donors, I'd also add) doesn't bare fruit. It is therefore a huge political risk. But no one ever got anywhere in politics without taking a few of those - if Ed Miliband and a great many other Labour supporters who were claiming just a few short months ago that they admired Thatcher's style of bold, paradigm-changing "conviction politics" are at all to mean what they say, it is moments like this that we all must be brave.
This new policy makes our relationship with the unions, and particularly with individual members, clearer and fairer, while hopefully bettering our image in the eyes of the wider public and some of the commentariat. And above all, it's a fairly rare day that Dan Hodges praises Ed, and an even rarer one when Tony Blair admits that he was not as bold. Yes, the changes have been attacked by a few critics on both the left and right, but that it predictable (I have also found the faltering attempts of a few right-wing commentators to suddenly declare themselves as experts on internal Labour rulemaking somewhat funny). After the chaos in Falkirk, the spending cap on candidates is also a welcome addition (questionable spending by one losing candidate was also rumoured to be a problem in my home parliamentary seat recently).
Yes, opt-in payment from the unions could cost the party a large chunk of the £8-9 million it currently gets from them, if indeed the efforts to sign-up individual unionists in place fall short or if one rightist Labour MP's reported prediction that Ed's announcement will increase the party's ability to fund-raise from the private sector (or perhaps Obama-style from small donors, I'd also add) doesn't bare fruit. It is therefore a huge political risk. But no one ever got anywhere in politics without taking a few of those - if Ed Miliband and a great many other Labour supporters who were claiming just a few short months ago that they admired Thatcher's style of bold, paradigm-changing "conviction politics" are at all to mean what they say, it is moments like this that we all must be brave.
This new policy makes our relationship with the unions, and particularly with individual members, clearer and fairer, while hopefully bettering our image in the eyes of the wider public and some of the commentariat. And above all, it's a fairly rare day that Dan Hodges praises Ed, and an even rarer one when Tony Blair admits that he was not as bold. Yes, the changes have been attacked by a few critics on both the left and right, but that it predictable (I have also found the faltering attempts of a few right-wing commentators to suddenly declare themselves as experts on internal Labour rulemaking somewhat funny). After the chaos in Falkirk, the spending cap on candidates is also a welcome addition (questionable spending by one losing candidate was also rumoured to be a problem in my home parliamentary seat recently).
The idea for a London mayoral primary is also brilliant - it could replicate the Parti Socialiste's drive in 2011, re-engage people with Labour and ensure that we have a more suitable and moderate candidate in 2016 than we did in 2012. There are still details that worry me about primaries, mainly cost and the possibility of "Operation Chaos"-style mischief wrought by political opponents, but both of these can be fixed. A minimum £1 contribution to vote could help cover costs as it did in the PS primaries, for example.
Preventing mischief from anti-Labour elements is a bit more difficult - the PS primaries were limited to Left supporters (so that's the new Labour "registered supporters" here) and apparently featured a sort of loyalty charter people had to sign. However, what ultimately makes the primary system in the US work so well and what shields it from attempts at "Operation Chaos-es" is the simple fact that both the Democratic and GOP primaries often occur on the same day, meaning that you have to forgo your right to participate constructively in your own party's process if you wish to immaturely intervene in that of your opponents - wisely, most Americans value their hard-won votes enough to choose the former over the latter, even if the primary on their own side is seen to be less impactful or isn't hotly contested. This points to either a gentlemen's agreement with the Tories and other parties to all hold London primaries for 2016 or perhaps, in the extreme, binding legislation from a 2015 Labour government mandating them.
Finally, Ed's proposed £5,000 individual donation cap, though not strictly speaking a new policy, is nevertheless good policy and good politics. If it were law, it would limit the power of big-money donors in politics and thus rebalance the financial playing field between Labour (and the Lib Dems) on the one hand and the Tories on the other. It is also lower than the Standards committee's recommended £10,000 cap, meaning it leaves Ed some ground to give up in party funding negotiations, which he can use to demand equal concessions from the other two parties (like some movement towards the commission cap from the Tories, who are currently set on a £50,000 cap, something like twice the average Briton's annual income).
All in all, a good package and a good week. Keep it up Ed.
Comments
Post a Comment