Tory attack doc designed to split Labour – but we are united, and focused on the issues at stake in the election

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

George Eaton at the New Statesman has already written a detailed post on the ludicrous hypocrisy of Conservative Party’s attack document on Labour’s relationship with trade unions, released today. George writes:

“The Tories aren’t wrong to point out Labour’s increasing financial dependence on the unions. In 2009 the unions were responsible for 64 per cent (£9.8m) of all donations to the party, with Unite accounting for 25 per cent (£3.6m). But isn’t this all rather nauseating coming from a party that for so many years was sustained by the non-domiciled Lord Ashcroft?

As I’ve argued before, there is no comparison between the donations Labour receive from Unite’s political fund (to which 1,291,408 members voluntarily contribute) and the millions the Tories receive from Ashcroft, a man who has sat in the legislature for nearly a decade without having the decency to become a full UK taxpayer.”

Charlie Whelan, the main focus of the attack document, need not rise to the bait set by the Tories; he merely retweets @StuartBruce:

“Which is scarier? One rich businessman who doesn’t pay tax to UK economy or millions of working people giving £3 each?”

George Eaton also notes:

“The [Conservative] Party’s decision to list the 108 MPs who belong to Unite, as if this proves that the party has been infiltrated by a hard-left sect, is equally laughable. It ignores the fact that almost every Labour MP is obliged to belong to a union (after all, the party was founded by them).”

But I sense the Tory attack on these lines is about much more than party funding. This new attack document from CCHQ is as much an attempt to divide the Labour Party — at a time when it is as united as it has been for some time and making gains on the Tories — as it is intended to provide the basis for further right wing media attacks.

Evoking “The Militant Tendency” is cynical and desperate; and attempting to drive a wedge between Labour Party members by pitting the old Blairite-Brownite arguments and personality disputes — “out will go James Purnell and Alan Milburn; in will come Jack Dromey and Ian Lavery” — will not work.

And if the Tories want to try to divide Labour, they might do better than to cite a promotion for Unite’s phone bank published by the traditionally New Labour group Progress, which shows where our concentration is: not on inward navel gazing, but on connecting with the electorate at large through working as a movement.

The truth is, Labour is united, and fighting the election on the issues — while the opposition conjours spiteful attacks on union members. So much for “change” from the Tories; this is the same old divisive politics and emptiness of policy we’ve come to expect. Meanwhile, at Labour HQ…