You are here: Home » Featured »

Party funding – Labour must be ready to rebut Tory attacks

March 25, 2012 9:17 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Party funding is a messy business, and today’s Sunday Times splash is just the latest manifestation of that. Tory Co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas’s resignation last night gave Tory politicians a firm(ish) line to use on the Sunday morning shows, but it won’t do much to keep party funding off the front pages of the papers in the days and weeks ahead.

Predictably, today’s events have raised serious questions (as is always the case with such scandals) about he future of party funding. We hear that all three major parties will be meeting imminently. The Lib Dems have been particularly pious when it comes to funding, but they should remember that no party has a perfect record when it comes to big donations. It just takes these periodic scandals to remind everyone that this is still an issue.

What is most troubling though is that the Tories (aided of course by their yellow friends) have tried to turn a Tory donations scandal into an attack on Labour’s historic link with the trade union movement. Some have even gone as far as to equate donations in the hundreds of thousands and millions from individuals with similar sized donations from affiliated trade unions.

Let us be clear – there is no such equivalence.

Union donations are effectively an accumulation of very small donations made by millions of members of democratic organisations. That leads to situations which are quite different from one individual seeking to sway policy with a big cheque.

Anyone who has watched British politics since 2008 will know how good the Tories are at reframing debates that aren’t promising for them and turning them to their advantage. They managed to argue that a global financial crisis built on dodgy practices in the financial sector was – in fact – a national public sector spending crisis caused entirely by Gordon Brown.

Compared to that, distracting the media from their donations problem by attacking Labour and affiliated unions will prove a doddle for then. We can’t be caught unawares this time.

Labour will need to be alert to the danger, and respond strongly and robustly to diversionary Tory attacks on the union link in the coming days (as well as attacks from those within the party who resent the link). Such a response should urge political parties to try and harness the power of the Internet to secure a much broader but shallower base for political donations – millions giving what they can to back parties who reflect their interests (which will mean the party needs to treat members and supporters better for a start).

But the party should equally defend one way in which millions already do donate to a political party – the union link. That should be a model for the future of party funding, not an example of a system gone wrong. We already appear to have been given a textbook example of that…

20120325-211558.jpg

Related posts:

  1. Why the Tories are wrong on Labour’s funding
  2. Party funding: challenges and opportunities
  3. The Labour Party, the labour movement and money
  4. David Laws is the wrong man for the Party Funding job
  5. Skinner vs Clegg on party funding
  • Bloolamp

    Trade union money is the cleanest in politics and the ties between the party and the unions was settled a century or ago. The Tories seek to restrict the unions because they are in open opposition to their policies. If this government succeeds it won’t be too long before other of our freedoms come under attack and our liberties eroded further. The Labour leadership should celebrate it’s ties with the unions not suffle about with embarrassment on the front benches.

    • http://twitter.com/sprogglie Sprogglechops

      Impression is everything.  The impression is that with the unions funding Labour to over 90% (to be fair the reason for that is that funding from elsewhere has plummeted), then the unions will basically drive Labour’s policies forwards. It might well not be true BUT Labour is going to have a huge fight not to convince the public that it isn’t true. There is already independent evidence that Ed Milliband’s election was decisively influenced by the unions.

      http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/7898.html 

      • AlanGiles

        It is a fact though that the very people who complain about Labour’s link’s with the unions, think it perfectly acceptable that Cameron has “private” (or secret, choose which word you like) with their donors, and try to write off the risible Peter Cruddass’s  excesses by pleading that he is “inexperienced” and “saying silly things”. You do not become a 58/59 year old rich man in the City of London with inexperience and saying silly things.

        • http://twitter.com/sprogglie Sprogglechops

          Actually I don’t think its acceptable and I for one question  how Crudas was appointed to such a post. However if party funding is to be questioned then all aspects of party funding – unions, business, private – must be looked at.

          • AlanGiles

            I think the difference is that it is quite easy to discover which unions give money to Labour, but if you have people like Cruddass who knows who has had access and influence to the top of their party?

            I think it is interesting that large companies like Tesco have jumped on the free “work experience” scheme for youngsters – one of the biggest and richest names in retail are effectively getting charity. They are not the only ones of course, but it would be intriguing to know if any of these “generous” companies have had a private supper with Cameron.

        • Ellis000

           What about Millibands attempted secret meeting and Rolls Royce trip with Mr Assem “Pharoah” Allam?  Does it not count if it benefits the left?  The list of labour’s secret meetings and bungs is too long to list here but glass houses and stones come to mind.  I would also remind you of the source of these revelations – News International.  Do you think that Rupert has it in for Cameron or will labour also be in his sights?

          • AlanGiles

            I am all for transparency whatever the party, and you will often find on this site, I have a go at both main parties for underhanded or frankly dishonest acts. I was never Blair’s greatest fan, and the Ecclestone affair really confirmed my view about him.

            As for Murdoch, I think he is likely to go at anybody who gets on the wrong side of him – he is a bit like a wild rabid dog – he was humiliated last year (“this is the most humble day of my life”), and MPs of all parties joined in attacking “Mr. Rupert”, so I don’t think one side or the other will get it easy from his rags – which is even more reason why all parties should make sure they are like Caesars Wife.

    • James3010

       ”Trade union money is the cleanest in politics” this may indeed true but i was under the impression that an MP’s primary role was to represent their constituents not their paymasters. I find the Cruddas affair as objectionable as Labour MP’s texting and checking with the unions before voting on legislation.

  • Robert_Crosby

    Trade union money is indeed the cleanest.  It is transparent and members decide whether they want their union to establish and maintain a ‘political fund’

    My main concern regarding the state funding of parties (and limits on the size of donations) is that it will only erode even further the sense that parties have identities and represent particular sets of values.  Those who make honest donations to any of the parties will do so on the basis that they have money that they are prepared to donate and that they wish to support the values that their party of choice has ALREADY set out.  I have never seen any evidence that any donation made to Labour by a trade union resulted in any “payback” to that union once in power.  Anyone who doubts that should look at the union recognition laws introduced by Labour from 1999.  They may have appeared to be positive for unions IN GENERAL when introduced, but the small business exception that was included in them has effectively scuppered recruitment of members in much of the private sector and contributed towards completely unjustified resentment  of the public sector.

  • William

    Really good points Mark. This is how things might play out with the Fib Dems being the biggest cheerleaders for breaking the Union link. There is in fact some suggestion that the Fibs and the Tories might proceed to legislation without the agreement of Labour thus completely emasculating our capacity to finance elections. The appointment of Maude and Feldman – archdeacons of cronyism – as the Tory negotiators in this cross-party debate on party funding does not bode well.  We could effectively end up with a one party state (unless one considers the Fibs to be a completely separate political unit in which case there would be 2).

  • ronnie

    What a timid, defensive article. The first thing on the Labour Party’s mind shouldn’t be fending off Tory attacks. Hadn’t you realised – it’s the Tories who are in the wrong!
    What the Labour Party needs to do is make it clear that nobody but nobody believes that Cruddas was acting as a rogue agent. Say it explicitly. Make it clear that we are not that stupid. We know that the Tory Party knew about these methods. We know this is how they get their money.
    We need to rub their noses in it. This is what people want to hear. This is what will do Labour most good.
    Why? Because it’s true.

    • Amber Star

      It’s neither a timid nor a defensive article & it is absolutely necessary. The first reaction by Conservative Home & Tory bloggers was: Use this Cruddas sting as an opportunity to end Union funding of Labour.

      Union funding is entirely legal & above board whereas Cruddas was discussing illegal donations. And this important distinction needs to be made clear to the public.

  • JohnP

    The tories are a well oiled, or greased, machine when it comes to repelling attacks. With thirteen years out of the game, they have changed in that they’re better at manipulating the story than Labour ever were in our heady spinning days. I suppose thats anatural consequence of having little to do between 97 and 10. Miliband, D on Marr this morning talked about breaking down the union block donation into individual donations. To do so, or to make it perfectly transparent that union donations consisted of millions of individual donations, would completely defeat Tory attacks and permanently tag them with their small group of very wealthy donors who make up their key funding streams.

    • derek

      John, kind of strange that the first person out of the trap wasn’t a shadow minister but a defeated leadership candidate who wasn’t chosen by the trade union membership for the leaders post? so any future bloc vote would be scrapped for individuals votes by nature of individual donations. The trade unions will make their own decisions about funding and support, the labour party would be extremely foolish to even listen to such desperate measure from the tories. 

      • AlanGiles

        Good morning Derek: Hopefully David Milibands witterings, both on the BBC and when he is taking News International’s money writing for the New News Of The World will condemn him out of his own mouth and ensure he never manages to grab the leadership. All he would be anyway is a cheap copy of Blair, though like any copyist, he has got some of his hero’s antics off pat – the money-grubbing for one.

        I think D Miliband is the new Ted Heath. Just as Heath simmered for years for being defeated by the Blessed Margaret, so Miniblair will never get over being defeated by his younger brother

  • derek

    Are the tories saying it was all a ploy to initiate the break of the unions and labour affiliation? oh goody, lets wait and hear where it goes from here.

  • GuyM

    Basic EU and UK law states before entering into any form of communication with a commercial, charitable and even in some cases public sector body, an individual has to OPT-IN to communications.

    There really is no moral case for a presumption that anyone who joins a union is agreeing to the political levy unless they actively opt out.

    If we had the same strucutre elsewhere you would always have a presumption on the side of companies and the like who wanted to spam you.

    Other parties have to actively convince an individual to join and donate, they can’t just assume and take someones money.

    If the political levy is so dear to union members hearts then put your money where your mouth is and have an opt-in option for people to proactively have to select.

    Of course the chance of your party accepting that is zero. So much for morals over funding eh?

    • derek

      No-try “Check off”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy

      Except, once again the facts are different – we DO have an opt-in mechanism. 

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Is it possible to be a member of a mainstream UK trade union and to ask for your money to be donated to the Liberal Democrats?

  • Amber Star

    During a review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life last year, Committee chairman Sir Christopher Kelly said: “The only way to remove the suspicion surrounding very large donations would be to ban very large donations. For the Conservatives it means giving up their advantage of having more wealthy supporters, for Labour, the relationship with the trade unions,” he said.

    I find this attack on the members of Unions who have chosen to join & to not opt out of the political fund outrageous, I really do. How dare Sir Christopher Kelly equate a working-person’s mite with the huge contributions made to secure personal influence by business donors.

    Capping individual donations would apply to the Labour Party as well as the Tories & LibDems, so that is all which needed to keep things fair.

    To simply look at the total amount of the funding & decide that an income stream must be cut down, regardless of its source (i.e. it is from millions of people via democratic oganizations already governed by opt-out rules) is an affront to democracy! This false comparison between rotten apples & perfectly fine pears must be strongly resisted by the entire Labour movement.

    • GuyM

      Should be opt-in, not opt-out.

      There should be no presumption that someone’s money will be taken from them without their acceptance.

      • AlanGiles

        ”
        Should be opt-in, not opt-out.”

        That’s exactly  how I feel about your abysmal, arrogant  prattling on LL.  You can’t avoid seeing numerous Guy-posts every day. There ought to be a “Guy’s Page” so all those who want to read your outdated snobbish fantasies can do so, and the rest of us, living in the real world can avoid them.

      • Brumanuensis

        Union dues aren’t exactly a secret, Guy.

      • Amber Star

        Do you know something, Guy, loads of Tories believed that the ‘opt-out’ would be the end of it & that significant numbers would opt out? They didn’t.

        So where would you go when ‘opt-in’ didn’t reduce donations? Separate collection? A complete ban on donations via Unions? Enough already. Union funds are legal, transparent & come out of taxable, UK income earned by people working in the UK. Why should Labour jump through hoops because the Tories & LibDems can’t keep their noses clean?

      • treborc

         Jesus Guy mate we ask we do not presume your asked if you wish to pay the political levy to labour, if you say no fine no pressure.

        You have to sign a form and tick the box for the levy, if you do not tick the box which says Levy to labour, levy to charity, then the form is not accepted.

        • charles.ward

           Who is “we”?  Searching for “union membership application form” on Google gives links to lots of union membership forms, I can’t find one which has a checkbox for the political levy.

          • charles.ward

            Correction, the UNISON one does have a checkbox for Affiliated or General political fund but no opt-out checkbox.

  • Brumanuensis

    Why does this poster spring to mind about the Tory’s donations situation? http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1987.1125.8

    ‘Millionen stehen hinter mir’ indeed .

    Incidentally, has anyone ever pondered the Conservative Party’s equivalence of a few rich men and women, with mass-membership organisations whose donations are regulated by some of the strictest rules in politics and are democratically endorsed by their members? This won’t stop the Liberals making the same false equivalence, of course. 

    A good way of capping donations in a way that minimises harm, would be to cap donations for groups according to a per person formula (i.e. £500 per member). So UNITE could donate £500 x N levy-payers and each individual donor not in a collective funding arrangement, could have a higher threshold.

    • Brumanuensis

      The ‘Godwin alert’ refers to the John Heartfield poster of course. Stupid formatting system.

  • Theramblingman

     

    well with so many Labour MP’s up to their eye balls in
    direct UNION funding to influence their votes in the commons, like Rachel
    Reeves and Sadiq khan to name but many…frankly, the corrupt Labour party
    stinks and has done for many years and people like you just buy into the same
    old UNION funded rubbish and follow like the sheep you are.

    so rebut all you like…the country knows the truth…shame the multi
    millionaires on the Labour front bench cant even see past their own bank
    balances!

    But a party who after 13 years had INCREASED the gap between rich and poor
    whilst they rode the gravy train to their offshore tax Havens
    (Chuka/Millibands) we should not be surprised with the Rank hypocrisy…..once
    again.

  • trotters1957

    No-one seems to have noticed that Peter Cruddas has a property in Monaco.
    Is he a UK resident for tax purposes or is he another serial tax avoider?

    • William

      Good point Trotters- don’t know. He has a £10m apartment in Monaco, a £5m house in Hertfordshire, a house in Antibes, a yacht and a private jet. He has made his money from his spread betting (a noble British industry) company- CMC markets. Can anyone find out if he pays tax in the UK?

      • Dave Postles

        ‘For several years he was one of the City’s “Monaco boys” living in the
        tax haven and commuting to work via London’s City airport.’

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/25/peter-cruddas-east-end-monaco

        So it would seem that he might have been a tax-avoider for some time.

        What I do not understand is why a PM (or Chancellor) may use public property for party-political purposes.  Downing St and Chaequers are not the ‘homes’ of the PM, but grace-and-favour residences owned by the public.  They should only be used for public affairs.

        • Dave Postles

          make that ‘Chequers’

  • treborc

    I’m not well enough at the moment to  bother about writing much, but when we ever talk about the link between Unions and the labour party you can bet your life it’s about money.

    I have been a member of the GMB for many a year, I joined the old Union in 1966 September 8th 1966 the same day I joined the labour party full membership.

    In those days you were not asked about the political levy it obviously went to labour, but actually when I became a shop steward I was  given courses I could do, including night school education, I took health and safety.

    It’s sad that labour sees the Union as a means of getting money, but the fact is Blair tried his best to break the link, Kinnock hated the link he again wanted it ended, Brown was just moronic so cannot be bother with him, and Miliband has given the new secretary instructions his main task is to look for revenue streams.

    Labour loves the money but are now classed as the Party of the middle class, it wishes to be seen as a middle class party, on here they accepted that OK the working class can be part of the middle class.

    The sad part of this labour did nothing for the Unions over the last fifteen years in fact Labour did it’s best to annoy people.

    Guy I have a form and phone number on my card, all I do is pick it up and state I want my political levy stopped and paid to a charity or used in another ways and it’s done within twenty four hours. We have letters yearly which state in plain language what we can do with the political levy.

    we then vote on whether the Union stays with Labour every three years, at the last vote it was so close the Union had to offer a deal to the members, we now spend our levy on MPs who back the ideal of the Union, be they Tory labour liberal or anyone else.

    Slowly it’s Unions who are moving away from the middle class party.

    • Peter Barnard

      Good comment, Treborc, and I hope that you get better soon.

      • AlanGiles

        I hope you soon feel better Treborc as well 

    • Dave Postles

      Good wishes to you, Robert/treborc

  • charles.ward

    You will be lucky if the Tories choose to use union funding as a distraction, they could bring up the Ecclestone scandle instead.  A much more clear cut case of donations actually buying policy.

  • AlanGiles

    Another update 1215 26th March:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17508271 

  • William

    E bay now has an ‘offer’ for evening dinner with Sam and Dave at No 10. Starting bid £1.

  • Politique

    Party Funding versus School Funding

    In 2006 for £2,000,000  you could have had your own school, a knighthood and argubly access to Tony Blair and Lord Levy

    2012 for £250,000 can gain you access to another Tory David Cameron.

    Which one is value for money?  Inflation has decreased dramatically

  • Dave Postles
  • Dave Postles

    Cruddas
    Apparently a tax exile for a decade before he returned to UK

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2120240/Just-Cameron-terrible-judge-character.html

  • Mike Murray

    The Tories are already spinning “Dinnergate” into a debate on Trade Union funding. We must keep reminding the public what this story is really all about and back calls for the matter to be referred to the Electoral Commission, for a police investigation and an independent enquiry.

Latest

  • News Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    By Kirstin Hay

    With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    By Mark Seddon

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    By Mark Ferguson

    Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]

    Read more →