If this stand-off over funding deepens, Labour and the unions both face disaster Yesterday, speaking again without notes, he attempted to make his case with equal brio to a sombre congress that spared him the jeers that many had expected but which rationed its applause to the studiously polite. Mr Miliband's offering, pitched somewhere in the middle of a spectrum of oratory stretching from Martin Luther King's "dream" speech to a railway station Tannoy, was polished but rarely electrifying. At times, he sounded convincing and passionate; at other moments, he seemed like a swimmer breast-stroking through porridge. There was no real sense that Mr Miliband was yet reaching, as one close colleague hoped he would, beyond the Bournemouth delegates "and out into the wider country." Like an unfinished jigsaw, Project Ed is littered with pieces that do not yet join up. The pattern that links union members to the community organising being embedded by the inspiring US veteran, Arnie Graf, is not apparent. Party funding, another part of the puzzle if Labour is to survive the slump in union contributions, remains equally unconnected. The influential MP John Denham, speaking in a personal capacity, urges Labour to campaign for a consensus to take big money out of politics and limit individual donations to £5,000. Others go further, suggesting that small donations could be matched by equivalent state funding. Either way, participation and fund-raising are all part of a quiet revolution which might be better characterised as mute. A silence punctuated by the odd percussion section orchestrated by the unions does not instil confidence in those still hoping for an outright Labour victory. And yet, despite what one loyalist calls the "bad smell" of Falkirk, Mr Miliband is in a stronger position than many think. A YouGov survey suggests that TUC members endorse his reforms, and there has surely never been a better time for unions, politicians and the general public to make common cause. With British workers suffering one of the biggest falls in real wages over the past three years (only the Netherlands, Portugal and Greece have fared worse), a country that has seen a 5.5 per cent drop in salaries during this parliament should be receptive to the case for better living standards being made by Mr Miliband. Equally, the mainstreaming of exploitation has put the unions, which successfully pushed recalcitrant employers for a minimum wage and better conditions, at the aching heart of public thinking. Union moderates who have worked with bosses, in the motor industry and elsewhere, to safeguard jobs and maximise productivity bear little relation to the rabble-rousers of old. Yet the spectre of the industrial relations impasse of almost half a century ago is being revived by those who long to caricature trade unionists as gravediggers leaning idly on their spades and refuse collectors decreeing that the streets are deep in detritus. Should the stand-off between Labour and the unions deepen, both face disaster. If the former is seen as weak and the latter as intemperate, then all those party luminaries anxiously working out that every arithmetical law makes David Cameron the loser in 2015 can pack up their calculators and prepare for nemesis. It will not be easy for moderates to reach a deal. Len McCluskey of Unite, far from being the red-eyed boss of Right-wing demonology, is a pragmatist hampered by those on the Left who would dearly love to sever ties with mushy Labour and join forces with some more amenable movement, such as the Socialist Workers" Party. Like other leaders, Mr McCluskey knows that Ed Miliband is the union barons" last best hope. Should they crucify him, then the last nails, plus hammer, are reserved for them. They are not going to get a more sympathetic party leader, or a better chance of Labour victory in the foreseeable future, and they know it. With his own party conference imminent, and with the battle set to drift on, Mr Miliband should play his strong hand more boldly. Not for nothing did Tony Blair have a Clause Four Moment, as opposed to a Clause Four Eight Months, culminating in a spring conference. Mr Miliband, in bravely opting for a battle that is substantive rather than symbolic, has also chosen a timetable that will be the making of his leadership or its ruin. "Ed prides himself on being a great strategic brain, but we're not dealing with this strategically," says one senior party figure. In the back rooms of Bournemouth and beyond, Mr Miliband will have to cut deals that displace such doubts, as well as appointing a general to negotiate with the unions on his behalf and an army of ground troops to deliver the rank and file. No one who was a spectator at Gordon Brown's last stand should ever under-estimate the Left's capacity to bicker its way to oblivion. The consequence, for unions and party alike, would be an implosion from which neither might emerge intact. If a row of almost no interest to voters becomes a chronicle of attrition, then the skirmish that Ed Miliband planned as his Agincourt may start to look like his Crimean War.