LONDON — With austerity still biting hard and a prime minister fighting to keep control of his own party as well as the coalition government he leads, this would appear to be a perfect time to be a leader of the only real opposition party. Labour has opened up a lead in the polls over the Conservatives (and the Liberal Democrats), and should be in the perfect position to start consolidating as leader Ed Miliband has finally shown signs of doing.
However, events in a city in Scotland exposed over the last week have drawn back the curtain on a seething political power struggle that seemed to undermine much of the gains made or at least, until yesterday.
The Falkirk Crisis, as it is now being referred to, was caused by a report from the Labour party’s election committee following up claims that Unite, the most powerful trade union in the UK, had attempted to rig constituency elections in the city by filling the available candidacies with people whose party dues had been paid by the union itself.
Labour last week cried foul, accused Unite of trying to rig elections and even referred the matter to the police. Cue the resignation of several ministers, including Labour’s election chief Tom Watson, and a flurry of angry counter-accusations in the media.
The reason why this has been labelled as a crisis stems back to Ed Miliband’s own election as leader after Labour was turfed out of office in the 2010 general elections. Standing as a candidate for leader against his brother, the affable, more presentable, charismatic (and essentially Blairite) David, Ed Miliband won a leadership ballot with 51 percent to his brother’s 49 percent. This was a shock at the time, although less so when it emerged that Ed’s victory was due to the unions choosing to back him and put their considerable influence behind him.
Fair enough, remarked commentators at the time, but this meant that Miliband would always be beholden to his benefactors. This has largely remained the case, but it seems that the Labour leader, who has often been criticized for his lack of leadership qualities (one source described him as a “bumbling idiot”) and forgettable presence, has now decided to make a play for independence.
It is a bold move. One of the fundamental issues at stake is funding. Unite, headed by Len McClusky, enrol up to three million members into the Labour Party each year, paying their dues and providing the party with a major source of funding. By taking on the union, Miliband is showing that he backs himself now, and no longer needs the support of his powerful former friends.
Indeed, this was illustrated yesterday, when Miliband made a speech setting out proposed reforms that would change the future of Labour. The reforms state that the party would no longer accept obligatory contributions from unions, giving people themselves the chance to “opt-in” to paying the party for membership.
As Miliband said himself yesterday, his reforms were a reaction to show “exactly the opposite of the politics we’ve recently seen in Falkirk. A politics that was closed. A politics of the machine. A politics that is rightly hated. What we saw in Falkirk is part of the death-throes of the old politics.”
These are strong words and could herald a real change for the Labour leader. Furthermore, the political reaction to the announcement has so far been positive, with plaudits being given by both former prime minister Tony Blair and McClusky himself. Commentators in the UK last night were already speculating as to whether this move could mark a dramatic sea change in the political system.
However, the question remains as to whether, just two years before the next general election, this is a gamble that could be pulled off with aplomb or whether it will scupper Labour’s chances of winning, while slashing the party’s funding. Much of the reaction to the Falkirk events before the speech were glee (from the opposition) and bewilderment from Labour supporters.
The main gripe from grassroots Labour members is that, once again, it appears that the party’s leadership seem to show little respect for the will and interest of their political heartland. The general sense among voters is that the unions should not wield as much power as they do, with 49 percent of the voting rights at party conferences. The situation faced by Labour over the last week is just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. However, at the same time, unions have historically represented the interests of their members; an attack on any union, be it Unite or a less powerful group, is perceived as an attack on their members.
There is still a long way to go before Miliband’s reforms are implemented in the Labour party and before their real impact can be discerned. Nevertheless, it is clear that this week, the Labour leader has made a move to be taken seriously, by his party and by the country. Its outcome will make or break him.
@archiewhit
First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on July 10, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment