Time to read the press more analytically and our leader less critically

By Kathryn Rose

The time has come to read the recent Independent article on party reform more analytically and judge Ed Miliband less critically. I would suggest that people start by ignoring the unjustifiably alarmist headline ‘Miliband plans to sever ‘big money’ ties with unions’; the detail of the article makes it quite clear that Ed has no such plans:

“With Mr Miliband’s backing, Ray Collins, Labour’s general secretary, has told the committee in a letter: “While some argue for a cap of £50,000, a much lower cap of around £500 would be more equitable, democratic and less susceptible to avoidance.””

So, they are actually reporting on an on-going debate about party funding and caps on donations which are liable to lie somewhere between £500 and £50,000. If someone told you that cars were on sale at prices between £500 and £50,000 it would not automatically mean you could have any car there for £500.

This isn’t a ploy by Ed Miliband at all, it is part of a cross-party debate which The Independent is reporting on and for which it has decided to focus on one party of the three for its own reasons:

“The shake-up of party finances has been suggested in Labour’s evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is holding an inquiry into the issue… the Tories worry that increasing state funding would provoke public hostility, but have supported a £50,000 cap on donations – which would end big gifts from supporters such as Lord Ashcroft, the party’s former treasurer.”

The key thing to remember is that The Independent’s focus is on “Labour’s evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is holding an inquiry into the issue”; this tells us that on the basis of its research the Labour Party would like to submit its findings. There is a big difference between submitting the results of research conducted for a public enquiry and the formation of the findings into policy.

When the parties involved have actually finished their active discussion then they will doubtless pick-out their final positions and launch their policies, but to assume that initial research findings are going to be final policies without any revision is to make-up policy before it exists.

The second point where the Independent article should be read more critically and Ed Miliband less critically is regarding the electoral colleges. The article suggests that:

“Ed Miliband is to distance Labour from its trade union paymasters by…reducing their role in electing the party leader.”

Claims of Ed Miliband attacking the unions through the introduction of a fourth section of the electoral college are also misleading; the article could equally accurately accuse Ed Miliband of attacking any MPS or party members, because he is in-fact treating them all equally: “He plans to give 25% of the votes to non-party members who register as Labour supporters. MPs, trade unionists and party members would also each have a quarter of the votes in Labour’s Electoral College. At present, MPs, union and party members each have a third of those votes.”

The new Electoral College system would therefore consist of the following: MPs (25% of the vote), trade unionists (25% of the vote), full members (25% of the vote), Labour sympathisers (25% of the vote).

For those looking for confirmation that Ed Miliband is not looking to attack the unions in any way whatsoever I would suggest listening to what our party is telling us directly:

“Mr Collins made clear that Labour still wants to keep its union link: “Any proposals should be respectful of the different traditions, backgrounds and structures of the various political parties. Party funding reform should not be used as a means to alter the institutional constitutional arrangements of individual political parties.””

When Ed Miliband was elected leader he was chosen to make changes to the party so that we can get back into power; but to draw-up new policy takes time. I know it’s frustrating that it takes time for these policies to be properly drawn-up; as a council candidate who is out on the doorstep every weekend I know the difficulties this leads to. However, when I head up to Oldham to campaign on the strengths of the candidate and the core values which hold our party together, I’ll know that consultations are happening and policy is being discussed.

If the misleading article in The Independent shows us nothing else then it illustrates why we cannot unveil the work going on behind the scenes which will later result in fully-formed policies; because any ideas in-progress will be treated as fully-formed policy. The one lesson which Labour can take from the Conservative-Liberal coalition is that if we start forcing out half-formed policies, like they are, just to make it seem like we’re doing something, then it will result in the array of u-turns which has left government credibility in tatters. We will have a manifesto, just probably not tomorrow. Let’s give Ed Miliband a chance.