Some of us, Paul, remember Harold Wilson's beer and sandwiches with the Trade Union Barons. Your declaration of the cleanliness of Union money doesn't quite wash with those of us with longer memories....
The first things this current Labour government did on gaining office were to massively increase various public sector pay scales followed by legislation making it impossible to run a business profitably by giving workers ridiculous rights from Day 1 of their employment. These actions of course were in no way related to the millions donated to Labour from the Unions.
A member of Unison for many years I did look into withdrawing from the “political levy”, but it was too much hassle. To be truly democratic the unions should offer members the “choice” to pay the levy but as many now vote Reform it might cause a bit of a financial headache.
You're talking as if they are both as bad as each other but, and not wanting to sound like a child, Labour started this. Labour is happy to take large donations from individuals but as soon as their opponents get some money they try to block it, but exempt donations from their trade union buddies. I'm not surprised at Farage's reaction. Labour is full of grifters. Raynor needs her gob gaffer taping for implying these crypto donors are fascists and dictators. Shame on her.
And come off it Paul, you're not telling
me that the unions don't want something in return?? Instant massive pay rises for train drivers - AGAIN - the second Labour come to power. It doesn't matter that these funds are raised through individual subs, it's still a collective that wants to influence in favour of workers. So to me it's the same thing so if there's a cap it should include the unions too. Then there's the resulting peerages and other privileges doled out by Labour and the Tories in return. It's a joke. At least Reform has said no donors will get peerages. Of course that could be a lie but it's more than the other are saying. Labour are hypocrites and they're not even hiding it anymore.
Of course the unions want something in return. But my point is that their demands are open - decided at their annual conferences - and their funding is transparent and subject to tight regulation. That's how it should be.
I understand and agree with your point but for me it's still donations in return for influence so whether that money comes from transparent trade unions who set out their stall ahead of time or from private donations, doesn't matter to me. Moreover large private donations from billionaires don't necessarily come with conditions. In the current case perhaps those billionaires just want Labour out and Reform in like a decent share of the population. Either way Reform would still have to answer to the electorate.
My only quibble with Union donations is that the requirement is to Opt OUT rather than Opt IN.
And opting out can be complex, difficult, protracted and publicised.
But basically I agree - the use of retrospective legislation is appalling in and of itself; worse still, it demonstrates how little the UniParty care about the electorate might think.
I believe that if you take a longer reading of the political history between the Labour Party and the TUnions you will see a very mixed relationship and a very mixed and complex relationship between the Labour politicians in power and out, and the union leaders and their members, and funding the Labour Party was a divisive issue.There is an enormous psychological and intellectual difference between those in power and the union members.Something I believe Paul has addressed?
Reply toDaniel Teece = I know you mean well but so easy to manipulate. Imagine a certain group of people known for block voting getting their members to put their name to a £50 donation? How would you police it? Our authorities have not found a way of stopping the invalid voting which has been going on for decades so I hold out no hope they would get a handle on this suggested scheme.
I have no problem with either donations as long as "within the rules/law ) , I would also say that it doesn't matter how many leaflets I get through door , it will not alter the fact I will not vote .
Retrospective law should only be used in extreme circumstances, ie pardon subpostmasters.
On party funding going forward, I have a suggestion, how about a maximum donation of £50 per person on electroal register per year to a political party . No unions, no hedgefunds , no crypto billionaires, no dale vince etc .
That way , your 50 quid will be as sort after by the parties as formentioned 50 quid from billionaires/ millionaires etc
Parties then would have to go and listen to the "Despised " ( avaliable at all good book shops and some rubbish ones ) .
Some of us, Paul, remember Harold Wilson's beer and sandwiches with the Trade Union Barons. Your declaration of the cleanliness of Union money doesn't quite wash with those of us with longer memories....
The first things this current Labour government did on gaining office were to massively increase various public sector pay scales followed by legislation making it impossible to run a business profitably by giving workers ridiculous rights from Day 1 of their employment. These actions of course were in no way related to the millions donated to Labour from the Unions.
Well said Iris.
Indeed Ian. Perhaps Paul could tell us if union members can decide which party their political levy goes to if it’s so clean?
The unions have leverage through strike action too, the terms of which will be enhanced in their favour by this government.
They get rather a lot for their money.
And "If you do anything we don't like, don't expect the funding...."
Harold Wilson - our best ever Labour leader and best ever PM.
Yep, best ever Labour Leader. That's not a high bar.....
A member of Unison for many years I did look into withdrawing from the “political levy”, but it was too much hassle. To be truly democratic the unions should offer members the “choice” to pay the levy but as many now vote Reform it might cause a bit of a financial headache.
You're talking as if they are both as bad as each other but, and not wanting to sound like a child, Labour started this. Labour is happy to take large donations from individuals but as soon as their opponents get some money they try to block it, but exempt donations from their trade union buddies. I'm not surprised at Farage's reaction. Labour is full of grifters. Raynor needs her gob gaffer taping for implying these crypto donors are fascists and dictators. Shame on her.
And come off it Paul, you're not telling
me that the unions don't want something in return?? Instant massive pay rises for train drivers - AGAIN - the second Labour come to power. It doesn't matter that these funds are raised through individual subs, it's still a collective that wants to influence in favour of workers. So to me it's the same thing so if there's a cap it should include the unions too. Then there's the resulting peerages and other privileges doled out by Labour and the Tories in return. It's a joke. At least Reform has said no donors will get peerages. Of course that could be a lie but it's more than the other are saying. Labour are hypocrites and they're not even hiding it anymore.
Of course the unions want something in return. But my point is that their demands are open - decided at their annual conferences - and their funding is transparent and subject to tight regulation. That's how it should be.
I understand and agree with your point but for me it's still donations in return for influence so whether that money comes from transparent trade unions who set out their stall ahead of time or from private donations, doesn't matter to me. Moreover large private donations from billionaires don't necessarily come with conditions. In the current case perhaps those billionaires just want Labour out and Reform in like a decent share of the population. Either way Reform would still have to answer to the electorate.
My only quibble with Union donations is that the requirement is to Opt OUT rather than Opt IN.
And opting out can be complex, difficult, protracted and publicised.
But basically I agree - the use of retrospective legislation is appalling in and of itself; worse still, it demonstrates how little the UniParty care about the electorate might think.
“We are the Masters now!”
Excellent article Paul and you're absolutely right that trade union money is the cleanest there is.
If the Reformists want to attack that, they'll be making a big mistake.
But then, they are basically disgruntled tories anyway.
I believe that if you take a longer reading of the political history between the Labour Party and the TUnions you will see a very mixed relationship and a very mixed and complex relationship between the Labour politicians in power and out, and the union leaders and their members, and funding the Labour Party was a divisive issue.There is an enormous psychological and intellectual difference between those in power and the union members.Something I believe Paul has addressed?
Reply toDaniel Teece = I know you mean well but so easy to manipulate. Imagine a certain group of people known for block voting getting their members to put their name to a £50 donation? How would you police it? Our authorities have not found a way of stopping the invalid voting which has been going on for decades so I hold out no hope they would get a handle on this suggested scheme.
Hi Paul 👋
I have no problem with either donations as long as "within the rules/law ) , I would also say that it doesn't matter how many leaflets I get through door , it will not alter the fact I will not vote .
Retrospective law should only be used in extreme circumstances, ie pardon subpostmasters.
On party funding going forward, I have a suggestion, how about a maximum donation of £50 per person on electroal register per year to a political party . No unions, no hedgefunds , no crypto billionaires, no dale vince etc .
That way , your 50 quid will be as sort after by the parties as formentioned 50 quid from billionaires/ millionaires etc
Parties then would have to go and listen to the "Despised " ( avaliable at all good book shops and some rubbish ones ) .
Thats my 2pence worth.
Great piece.
Have a lovely day Paul and other readers 😃