A reform which would see the removal, from Labour party funds, of the automatic donation of Trade Union subscriptions, via their political levy.
This is both a risky, yet highly principled strategy.
I have very mixed views on the strengths and weaknesses of Labour's leader, yet on this point, I find myself in complete agreement.
Britain's trade unions have a long and largely proud, history.
Their struggles for fair pay, health and safety, equality and so many other issues, have led to a fairer society and you will find no argument from me in extolling their virtues.
Indeed, as Chief officer of Strathclyde Fire & Rescue, I developed a very close working relationship with many unions and I strongly believe in the use of a plural approach to developing policy and strategy.
Mr Miliband's initiative is an interesting one.
I recall the Prime Minister's Questions session in which David Cameron hounded Miliband and the Labour benches over the scandal of the selection of the party's prospective candidate in Falkirk.
It was in truth, fair game, for a party that from Old Labour to New Labour, had been almost constantly struggling to redefine its relationship with the unions.
It was as though both sides wanted to eat the omelette, yet neither wanted to break the eggs.
It was therefore with some scepticism, and more than a little suspicion, that we waited to see what Miliband would do.
Whether his proposal was a direct reaction to Cameron's taunts, I suppose we may never know, but it has resulted in a momentous shift in Labour ideology.
In turn, the Labour leader has now shifted the argument of party donations back to David Cameron.
Whether it is the issue of big party donors to the Tories or the unions millions going to Labour, this is a major strand of our political system that urgently needs to be fixed.
What is all of that money buying? It must be buying something. We are often told that it is buying influence and amounts to little more than harmless lobbying.
No it isn't. It is hypocrisy at work.
It is the politics of self- interest. The politics of patronage on one side and of privilege on the other.
Both are equally divisive and should be rooted out.
Both produce an Honours system geared towards rewarding their supporters.
Have a look at the House of Lords and ask how it's occupants arrived there.
Look at the seats on the board of any Quango and there they are, the ex-trade unionists and party donors, products of a system in which few of us have any confidence.
Yet, in turn, this patronage will also produce a new generation of politicians who are the very products of this badly flawed system.
The privilege on one side of the House, the patronage on the other.
It is, in truth, very clever, self-funding and self perpetuating, irrespective of how people vote.
In Scotland, the position is slightly different.
Many unions in Scotland have shifted payment of their political levy away from Labour and to the SNP.
The TUC represents some 54 unions and some 6million workers. The UK workforce numbers some 33 million. So, with 80% of all workers choosing not to be a member of a trade union, perhaps Mr Miliband has called it right.
The days of the backroom deals between politicians and union officials may well be numbered. Let's hope so.
In the last Scottish Parliamentary elections, some 50% of all eligible voters in Scotland decided not to vote.
In the local government elections, 70% decided not to vote. In elections for trade union officials, the figures are even lower.
These disappointing facts provide fertile ground for the politics of self-interest, where the aspirations of the many are quickly traded for the ambitions of the few.
Inevitably, as we draw closer to the Independence referendum, both sides of the argument will bemoan the level of voter apathy and ask why is there such a democratic deficit? Answers on a postcard,
In the meantime, we need an Act of Parliament that makes privilege and patronage a memory of our political past.