Ed Miliband and the threat to unions' political rights

Submitted by martin on 31 May, 2011 - 10:42

The threat of a ban on union funding for political parties remains in the wings.

The Observer ran an article on it on 29 May, oddly hanging it on the "news" of a statement by Labour Party general secretary Ray Collins to the inquiry on political party finance being run by Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL, a sort of quango, set up in 1994, with members appointed by the Government and the three big parties).

The statement was last October. The newsworthy thing about it was not that Collins objected to a ban on union affiliation money for the Labour Party, but that he advocated a cap on donations to political parties at £500, not the commonly-discussed figure of £50,000.

Collins did that officially, on behalf of the Labour Party, but did not consult or inform Labour's National Executive.

The thinking - to judge by statements from Ed Miliband's office the last time this issue surfaced in the press - was that it would be "clever" to wrongfoot the Tories by proposing a smaller cap, and that union affiliations (though not extra union donations) could continue because they are only an aggregation of individual union members' levy payments.

The CSPL had said it would report in "late spring 2011", but Maggie O'Boyle of CSPL tells us that the report will not come until autumn 2011, and there will be no preliminary reports.

This snakepit was dug by the Blair government, which initially was keen on scrapping Labour's union link altogether and replacing it by full state funding for political parties.

State funding is too unpopular to introduce without all-party agreement. The Blair administration set up the Hayden Phillips inquiry in 2006-7 to get that agreement, but was stalled after Hayden Phillips reported.

Nick Clegg is known to regard implementation of Hayden Phillips (the £50,000 cap) as a priority.

Most dangerously, Ed Miliband said during the Labour leadership campaign that he would seek "cross-party agreement" on political party funding. Maybe he thought that was clever, too. His more right-wing opponent for leader, David Miliband, had enough common sense flatly to oppose curbs on union funding for Labour.

Let's hope the Observer article reflects Labour and trade-union apparatchiks waking up on this question, putting pressure on Ed Miliband, and strengthening their case by feeding the press.

The latest figures from the Electoral Commission on donations to the Labour Party since 1 November 2010 show a total of £196,000 from business (the bulk from KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers); £18,000 from individuals; £3,555,000 from unions; and £5,453,000 from the various forms of state funding which already exist, having grown steadily since the 1970s.

The early-Blair-years flurry of big-business funding for the Labour Party faded long ago, and shows no sign of returning.

Above all, though, the question here is democracy. Unless working-class people are able to deploy the funds of our own large collective organisations for political activity, we will be at vast disadvantage compared to the rich, who can pretty much "buy" a political party at will from their petty cash accounts.

The threat of a ban on union funding for political parties remains in the wings.

The Observer ran an article on it on 29 May, oddly hanging it on the "news" of a statement by Labour Party general secretary Ray Collins to the inquiry on political party finance being run by Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL, a sort of quango, set up in 1994, with members appointed by the Government and the three big parties).

The statement was last October. The newsworthy thing about it was not that Collins objected to a ban on union affiliation money from the Labour Party, but that he advocated a cap on donations to political parties at £500, not the commonly-discussed figure of £50,000.

Collins did that officially, on behalf of the Labour Party, but did not consult or inform Labour's National Executive.

The thinking - to judge by statements from Ed Miliband's office the last time this issue surfaced in the press - was that it would "clever" to wrongfoot the Tories by proposing a smaller cap, and that union affiliations (though not extra union donations) could continue because they are only an aggregation of individual union members' levy payments.

The CSPL had said it would report in "late spring 2011", but Maggie O'Boyle of CSPL tells us that the report will not come until autumn 2011, and there will be no preliminary reports.

This snakepit was dug by the Blair government, which initially was keen on scrapping Labour's union link altogether and replacing it by full state funding for political parties.

State funding is too unpopular to introduce without all-party agreement. The Blair administration set up the Hayden Phillips inquiry in 2006-7 to get that agreement, but was stalled after Hayden Phillips reported.

Nick Clegg is known to regard implementation of Hayden Phillips (the £50,000 cap) as a priority.

Most dangerously, Ed Miliband said during the Labour leadership campaign, when questioned by the Financial Times (24 September) and by the Left Foot Forward blog (9 September), that he wanted to "make progress on party funding together with other parties". Maybe he thought that was clever, too. His more right-wing opponent for leader, David Miliband, had enough common sense flatly to oppose curbs on union funding for Labour.

Let's hope the Observer article reflects Labour and trade-union apparatchiks waking up on this question, putting pressure on Ed Miliband, and strengthening their case by feeding the press.

The latest figures from the Electoral Commission on donations to the Labour Party since 1 November 2010 show a total of £196,000 from business (the bulk from KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers); £18,000 from individuals; £3,555,000 from unions; and £5,453,000 from the various forms of state funding which already exist, having grown steadily since the 1970s.

The early-Blair-years flurry of big-business funding for the Labour Party faded long ago, and shows no sign of returning.

Above all, though, the question here is democracy. Unless working-class people are able to deploy the funds of our own large collective organisations for political activity, we will be at vast disadvantage compared to the rich, who can pretty much "buy" a political party at will from their petty cash accounts.

Links

Hayden Phillips inquiry

Committee on Standards in Public Life

Collins evidence to CSPL

Observer article, 29 May.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.