Ed needs to decide what he really wants

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

Someone has evidently been briefing the Guardian today, as they’ve got a big splash on Ed Miliband’s plans to dilute trade union influence both at conference and in the leadership contest. Perhaps it’s panic from some within Team Ed after Chris Lennie (thought to be Ed’s preferred candidate) lost out to Iain McNicol two weeks ago in the race to be General Secretary. That would be odd, because McNicol campaigned hard for the younger Miliband during the leadership contest and seems a good fit for Ed’s aims and values. If this is fear, revenge or sour grapes, then those responsible should realise how dangerous the game they are playing is. In a determination to shed the Red Ed tag, they’re pitching for “strong Ed” articles this summer. But that’ll only lead to “weak Ed” articles when there’s a compromise (or a defeat) in the autumn. Strong Ed gets an airing during silly season, weak Ed will be all the rage in September. That’s not smart politics.

That’s not to say that Ed’s proposals (if that’s what they are) are without merit. Although diluting the percentage of the vote held at conference by the unions whilst still expecting them to bankroll the party is a difficult (or impossible) sell, if this move goes hand in hand with making conference more democratic and more influential, then there are the seeds of a deal here. Surely most of the unions can see that having 40% of something important is better than having 50% of something worthless?

The question for Ed and his team is – do you want a public fight or a private deal? Or to put it another way, do you want press stories about how strong Ed is in standing up to the unions (only to fall back and look weak later) or to actually make tangible changes to the party? Doing both isn’t an option – it looks like bully boy tactics and even the most mild mannered union official will take it as an affront. David Miliband threatened the unions during the leadership contest, whilst Ed listened but made no promises. We all know which tactics was more successful.

Ed is playing a dangerous game at the moment. We already know that the trade unions will fight this – as we reported months ago, one senior trade unionist said such changes would be made “over seven million dead bodies” – and they hold the party’s financial future in their hands. Diversifying the party’s financial future is crucial if we are to win the next election, but that doesn’t mean biting the hand that feeds you. Some in team Ed seem to believe that the unions have nowhere to go with their money. That’s a bluff that had better not be called.

Ed is playing a dangerous game, and it’s one that in all likelihood he’ll lose. As Miliband was so keen on saying at the end of June, it’s time to stop being reckless, and get around the negotiating table. The Labour leader should listen to his own advice.