Peter Kellner
BY Peter Kellner
This is Ed Miliband’s darkest hour; but dawn could soon arrive. His current poll numbers are plainly terrible. YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times was conducted as the arguments raged about Labour’s links with the trade unions and, in particular, Miliband’s spat with Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union. It found that:
Only 26 percent think he is doing well as Labour’s leader; 60 percent think he is doing badly — a nets score of minus 34. A mere 18 percent of the public — and only 38 percent of Labour supporters — feel he “has provided an effective opposition to the government”.
Just 20 percent think he is up to the job of prime minister — down from an already low 25 percent two months ago. One in three of those who voted Labour in 2010 think he is not up to the job.
How should Miliband respond? As usual on these occasions, the cry goes up for Labour to sever its links with the unions. Leaving aside the merits of this issue, we should note that the present arrangement did nothing to stop Labour winning three elections in a row under Tony Blair, two of them with huge majorities.
Blair had proved that he would not be swayed by union votes and union money. Years before he became leader, he ended the party’s backing for closed shops – the system that allowed unions to force all employees in workplaces with “closed shop” agreements to be union members. By the time of the 1997 election, Tory attempts to portray Blair as a left-wing stooge (most famously in their “demon eyes” advertisement) were plainly ridiculous.
Miliband’s problem is that his record is nothing like Blair’s. Indeed, he really does owe his position to the leaders of the big unions, including Unite. During the 2010 leadership election YouGov twice polled union members with a vote. Initially, in July, they backed David Miliband over his brother by 56 percent-44 percent. Then the big unions went to work.
This matters because today’s arguments do not simply concern the merits of union members taking part in Labour elections. Ed could, and does, point out that more than 330,000 individuals voted in the contest three years ago, far more than the number of Conservatives involved in the election that made David Cameron leader of his party in 2005. Ed’s real problem is the way the major unions behaved. They exploited inadequate party rules to run a biased campaign in his favour. Had they given all the candidates a fair chance to appeal to their members, the 13 percent swing to Ed would almost certainly not have happened. Given the closeness of the final result, without that shift, David would have won.
Miliband, then, has his work cut out to persuade voters that he is not a pawn of the unions. What can he do? The starting point for any fightback is the realisation that this is not just about Labour and the unions. It is about the character of the party and its leader. Blair was able to win despite the Labour-union link because voters decided that he was tough enough, independent enough and, above all, competent enough to lead Britain. Miliband needs to build a similar reputation.
Fortunately, the very issue that is causing him such pain at the moment provides an opportunity to start that process. In recent days he has talked the talk with flair and steel. Now he must walk the walk. There is an agenda for him to capture, and which he has hinted at, of giving more of a say to union members and less power to union leaders. Yesterday’s speech will enable him to move beyond hints.
One option is to end the system by which members of unions affiliated to the Labour party pay the political levy automatically unless they actively opt out. There is a strong case for a double reform: Establishing an opt-in system, under which individual union members would have to assert positively that they wish to pay their levy; and then giving those who do so full individual party membership. At a stroke, Labour would become Britain’s largest political party by far. Leadership and candidate-selection contests would be truly democratic. Unions would become collection agencies rather than power-brokers. They would no longer be able to buy block votes with block funds. To persuade voters that he has the strength, independence and competence to become prime minister, he must do much more. His biggest challenge concerns the issue on which the government ought to be vulnerable: the economy. For three years it has been flatlining. Productivity and living standards are down. Investment levels are scandalously low. The big banks are discredited.
However, since 2010 Labour has been hobbled by its own record in office. Voters still blame the Blair and Brown years more than the coalition for Britain’s woes. But this is partly because few normal people have been listening to what Miliband or Ed Balls have been saying. They remember who was in charge when recession struck, and show little interest in giving them a second hearing. This is not surprising. When a party is kicked out after a long spell in power, voters take time before they are willing to review their verdict.
In these circumstances, every chance to gain a hearing must be seized. Miliband may not like the form of attention he is now receiving, but he should be grateful to get any attention at all. While the spotlight is on him, he can seize the hour. While the media and his opponents test his mettle, he has the ideal opportunity to show that he is able not just to sort out Labour’s relations with the unions, but to take big, bold steps towards the goal that really matters: re-establishing Labour’s economic credibility.
I am loth to offer odds on Miliband achieving either objective, let alone both. His current spat with McCluskey could go horribly wrong. If so, Labour will be doomed to lose in 2015. But maybe, just maybe, Miliband can turn his troubles to his advantage and set Labour on the road to victory. This is truly a crisis he can’t afford to waste. THE GUARDIAN
BY Peter Kellner
This is Ed Miliband’s darkest hour; but dawn could soon arrive. His current poll numbers are plainly terrible. YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times was conducted as the arguments raged about Labour’s links with the trade unions and, in particular, Miliband’s spat with Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union. It found that:
Only 26 percent think he is doing well as Labour’s leader; 60 percent think he is doing badly — a nets score of minus 34. A mere 18 percent of the public — and only 38 percent of Labour supporters — feel he “has provided an effective opposition to the government”.
Just 20 percent think he is up to the job of prime minister — down from an already low 25 percent two months ago. One in three of those who voted Labour in 2010 think he is not up to the job.
How should Miliband respond? As usual on these occasions, the cry goes up for Labour to sever its links with the unions. Leaving aside the merits of this issue, we should note that the present arrangement did nothing to stop Labour winning three elections in a row under Tony Blair, two of them with huge majorities.
Blair had proved that he would not be swayed by union votes and union money. Years before he became leader, he ended the party’s backing for closed shops – the system that allowed unions to force all employees in workplaces with “closed shop” agreements to be union members. By the time of the 1997 election, Tory attempts to portray Blair as a left-wing stooge (most famously in their “demon eyes” advertisement) were plainly ridiculous.
Miliband’s problem is that his record is nothing like Blair’s. Indeed, he really does owe his position to the leaders of the big unions, including Unite. During the 2010 leadership election YouGov twice polled union members with a vote. Initially, in July, they backed David Miliband over his brother by 56 percent-44 percent. Then the big unions went to work.
This matters because today’s arguments do not simply concern the merits of union members taking part in Labour elections. Ed could, and does, point out that more than 330,000 individuals voted in the contest three years ago, far more than the number of Conservatives involved in the election that made David Cameron leader of his party in 2005. Ed’s real problem is the way the major unions behaved. They exploited inadequate party rules to run a biased campaign in his favour. Had they given all the candidates a fair chance to appeal to their members, the 13 percent swing to Ed would almost certainly not have happened. Given the closeness of the final result, without that shift, David would have won.
Miliband, then, has his work cut out to persuade voters that he is not a pawn of the unions. What can he do? The starting point for any fightback is the realisation that this is not just about Labour and the unions. It is about the character of the party and its leader. Blair was able to win despite the Labour-union link because voters decided that he was tough enough, independent enough and, above all, competent enough to lead Britain. Miliband needs to build a similar reputation.
Fortunately, the very issue that is causing him such pain at the moment provides an opportunity to start that process. In recent days he has talked the talk with flair and steel. Now he must walk the walk. There is an agenda for him to capture, and which he has hinted at, of giving more of a say to union members and less power to union leaders. Yesterday’s speech will enable him to move beyond hints.
One option is to end the system by which members of unions affiliated to the Labour party pay the political levy automatically unless they actively opt out. There is a strong case for a double reform: Establishing an opt-in system, under which individual union members would have to assert positively that they wish to pay their levy; and then giving those who do so full individual party membership. At a stroke, Labour would become Britain’s largest political party by far. Leadership and candidate-selection contests would be truly democratic. Unions would become collection agencies rather than power-brokers. They would no longer be able to buy block votes with block funds. To persuade voters that he has the strength, independence and competence to become prime minister, he must do much more. His biggest challenge concerns the issue on which the government ought to be vulnerable: the economy. For three years it has been flatlining. Productivity and living standards are down. Investment levels are scandalously low. The big banks are discredited.
However, since 2010 Labour has been hobbled by its own record in office. Voters still blame the Blair and Brown years more than the coalition for Britain’s woes. But this is partly because few normal people have been listening to what Miliband or Ed Balls have been saying. They remember who was in charge when recession struck, and show little interest in giving them a second hearing. This is not surprising. When a party is kicked out after a long spell in power, voters take time before they are willing to review their verdict.
In these circumstances, every chance to gain a hearing must be seized. Miliband may not like the form of attention he is now receiving, but he should be grateful to get any attention at all. While the spotlight is on him, he can seize the hour. While the media and his opponents test his mettle, he has the ideal opportunity to show that he is able not just to sort out Labour’s relations with the unions, but to take big, bold steps towards the goal that really matters: re-establishing Labour’s economic credibility.
I am loth to offer odds on Miliband achieving either objective, let alone both. His current spat with McCluskey could go horribly wrong. If so, Labour will be doomed to lose in 2015. But maybe, just maybe, Miliband can turn his troubles to his advantage and set Labour on the road to victory. This is truly a crisis he can’t afford to waste. THE GUARDIAN
