So, the Conservatives have raised more money in the last quarter of 2009 than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined. Some obvious problems this could cause relate not just to the upcoming general election also to the possibility - if neither party gets a sustainable majority - that an election that quickly follows will put Labour at a huge disadvantage. Also, it hampers Labour's ability to fight on an even-footing in the key marginals which, if Angus Reid's polling is to be believed, are currently showing a bigger swing away from Labour. So this is not an issue we can afford to ignore. Meanwhile, the Conservatives, not content with having the advantage, want to cement it by cutting off union funding to Labour, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph:
"Under the Tory plans, union members would have to choose to contribute to the political fund every time they pay their annual subscription."
The argument that there is something inherently democratically wrong with the political levy is a class war idea if ever there was one. It wrongly assumes that the unions can compete on a level playing field with companies and wealthy individuals - and it ignores the fact that trade unionists can opt-out.
Looking at the recent figures from the Electoral Commission, it's not hard to see the how wrong this assumption is: companies contributed slightly over £2 million to the Conservative warchest in the last quarter, compared to just over £200,000 to Labour’s. This, of course, is not to mention the Ashcroft millions which form a part of the £7 million that the Conservatives received from individual donors.
Trade Union money accounts for 11% of funding to all parties compared to 17% for companies and 64% from individual donations. Making the unions jump through more hoops would diminish already marginal influence and give the edge to corporate and wealthy individual donors who largely favour the Conservatives. Politically, in a rather sneaky, underhand way, David Cameron wants to terminate the Labour Party not by democratically winning the political debate, but by depriving it of finance.
Fundraising should be seen less as a fiscal - and more as a political - question; as a way to encourage greater involvement at every level. Thus, it should be most targeted and intensive in marginal seats.
David Blunkett is currently spearheading a campaign to raise more money through small donations, a la Obama, above. However I think this requires more than 'letting people know' what is done with their money; after all we, do not want people to view the Labour Party as being like the stray animal that they sponsored out of the kindness of their hearts. We want them to feel a sense of ownership and involvement with its future and its current campaign; so, they should be encouraged to give and maybe asked if they will display a poster or deliver a leaflet they paid for. That way, our supporters can own the difference they make.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
It's disingenuous to compare money given by TU's to that given by companies and individuals in terms of money given to all parties, when the vast majority (if not all of it) goes to Labour. TU funding accounted for 64% of Labour funding from 2001-2005, (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmconst/163/16305.htm) and that proportion will only have increased recently with the complete collapse of LP membership and donations from other avenues.
Let's not forget that the Government currently pays a huge amount to the Unions in the form of 'development grants', money that shortly gets repaid straight into Labours coffers.
Would you please also describe how the development grants are used, who vires the money to them, what sort of money is involved, and how (you believe) that money is recycled to the Labour Party?
Really.... I did not know that...
As a taxpayer I should get to vote on whether my tax dollars got toward a political organisation supporting only a minority of the population!
Well, actually, we all pay for those contributions through the prices that we have to pay for goods and services. I'm sure that the companies do not have a whip-round of their managers or employees. Even if the shareholders vote the money, and if it is assumed that therefore they lose some of their dividend, their dividend ultimately comes from us as purchasers/consumers. So we all indirectly contribute to the Tory party without being consulted.
Financially the party has been run badly. As Labour has become less attractive the issue has just got worse.
Question though - last year the rumour was that Brown and leading members of the PLP would be liable for the debt. Has that been sorted out?
I have no objection to that either though if they do I dont think they should have to do it every year. They should opt-in until they choose to opt-out. Agreed about companies though; shareholders do not have as many rights as they should.
I think also the issue with Ashcroft is the lack of transparancy. The relationship between Labour and the Unions is there for all too see and people can judge for themselves whether the money buys influence (sadly it doesnt) where as nodbody can tell what Ashcroft gets in return for his support.
The Ashcroft conundrum is that he does not donate directly as an individual (not since 2001, I believe), but through the Bearwood Corporation. The position of Bearwood is therefore at issue. I've looked through the EC list of contributors to the Tory Party and Ashcroft appears only once by name, I believe, in 2001. Mittal appears under his own name in the list of donors to Labour.