Two stories in today's Times examine the shock revelation that the trade unions are due to play a prominent role in the forthcoming election.
Two stories in today’s Times examine the shock revelation that the trade unions, instrumental in the formation of the Labour party, are due to play a prominent role in the forthcoming election. Left Foot Forward looks at the evidence.
Rachel Sylvester in the Times writes that:
Like Lord Ashcroft, Unite has been generous financially, contributing £3.6 million to Labour last year, nearly a quarter of the total donations the party received. Since March 2007 it has given more than £11 million.
The latter is clearly a big number but put in context it looks rather smaller. According to a written parliamentary answer from 2009, 1,291,408 Unite members contribute to its political fund – working out at under £3 per member per year since March 2007. Rather less than the average of £1 million a year donated by Lord Ashcroft’s company Bearwood Corporate Services over the same period.
Meanwhile, Tom Baldwin reports that:
Four of the most recent selections by constituency parties in winnable seats have led to senior trade union officials becoming parliamentary candidates.
But although it may be shocking to those who wish to see the destruction of the trade unions, Unite’s parliamentary group already has 156 members. Indeed, a number of senior Labour politicians of the past and present had prominent trade union backgrounds. These include
• Jim Callaghan – Assistant Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation before going on to become Prime Minister
• Ernest Bevin – General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and later foreign secretary
• Alan Johnson – General Secretary of the Communications Workers Union and current Home Secretary
31 Responses to “Stop press: Unions support Labour”
Peter Welsh
RT @leftfootfwd: Ashcroft & Unite are not analogous. Ashcroft gives £1m per year; Unite members give £3 per year http://cli.gs/t4rWQ
Liz McShane
Billy – not sure why ‘endearing’. I just don’t find the link to the UMF (which is the public domain) & transparent a problem – unlike the 10 year old lies, failed promises and assurances that Cashcroft & Hague are in cahoots over…..
Tyler
OK Liz.
Are you seriously telling me that the £3.6m that UNITE have pumped into Labour have not bought influence? I’m sure Charlie Whelan and Jack Dromey’s positions, as well as a few others, has *nothing at all* to do with that money, or the £11m totall UNITE has funded Labour with since 2007. Nothing at all?
Let’s also have a quick look at the UMF as well shall we…Labour gives ~£12m of TAXPAYER money to the unions. Unions give £11m to Labour. Hmm. Suspicious, no? Even if that money is not directly being used to fund Labour, it still frees up a huge amount of money for the unions to give to Labour, which they would have otherwise had to use on the same projects. It’s nothing but a disgusting charage.
Which leaves your and Labour’s last argument – that Ashcroft promised to become domiciled if he joined the Lords. Apart from the hypocrisy of having many Labour non-odm party backers, you also have non-doms in positions of power (privy counsellor Lord Paul). Thats before you get to the Labour Lords, in government who HAVE done things bordering on the illegal (Mandelson).
Aschroft only promised to become RESIDENT in the UK, it transpires. Being non-domiciled is NOT illegal. Why should there be one rule for Ashcroft, and completely different rules for Labour non-dom peers, and given how Labour are funding themselves it is disingenuous to complain about the Tory party’s sources of funding.
I suppose though, I shouldn’t be surprised. Labour are, after all, known for hyprocisy and spin. It’s characterized the last 13 years.
Liz McShane
Tyler – (I presume I am correct in thinking that you are not Tyler as in Tyler Brule…..).
Of course Trade Unions have influence within the Labour party – I might be mistaken but I think they were there when it was founded…. and as for Charlie Whelan, well he is Political Director of UNITE – so I think the clue is in the title. Again all fairly transparent.
I am against all non-doms funding political parties so I am glad that Lord Paul has reviewed his position:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/03/160-status-lord-peer-tory
Cashcroft is deputy party chairman and wields quite a lot of influence within his party and nationally – no mean feat. Shame he can’t even be bothered to pay VAT on opinion polls that he funds for the party – so much for patriotism a la Cameron…..
http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/03/ashcroft-party-vat-polling
Liz McShane
Tyler et al – you are not the only ones losing your cool over Cashcroft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AznSOikAHoE&feature=sub