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”
Tyler
OK Liz, so what you are saying is that it is perfectly fine for unions to fund Labour and demand influence (as well as of course, Labour funding those unions from taxpayer money), Labour to have non-dom peers, but not OK for the Tories to? Do you think it’s good when over half of Labour’s operating funds come from one source, and that union has placemen high up with in the party?
As for Lord Paul; this is a man who is in trouble over his Lords expenses, and has passed his business over to his sons, partly for tax reasons. I’ll bet he and his family won’t be paying full UK tax on their fortune even if he himself becomes domiciled.
I’m glad though that you are against all non-doms funding parties though – after all, Labour has had just under £10m from non-doms and the Tories about £4.5.
The point I was really trying to make though, is that you are playing the typical Labour confidence trick. Hypocritically focusing on one non-story about the opposition to hide the extent of Labour’s sleaze. Brown does it all the time with his “Brownies” (and let’s be very clear, they are lies) and it seems to have spread to the party grassroots. Just because you are a card waving Labour party supporter does not give you any form of moral superiority, and no amount of singing slogans will ever change that.
Henry
Hmm, ‘you’ve got more non-doms supporting you than we have supporting us’ is not a very compelling argument.
The point about Ashcroft is that he was only given a peerage after he appeared to commit to being a ‘permanent resident’ in the UK. After endless obfuscation, we now find out that he wiggled out of this commitment.
Oh, & Tyler, do you think it’s healthy that around 30% of Tory funds come from bankers & property types – who are significantly less popular than trade unions (& certainly don’t represent millions of people).
john lee
it would be quite hipocritical for the unions not to support labour, wouldn’t it, a bit like the pea denying the pod, sort of, !
Fred
Liz
It may be transparent but it is still utterly corrupt for a Labour government to take our money, give it to the unions via the UMF and for the unions to give it back to the Labour party to use for its own political purposes. It stinks. You know this which is why you are throwing up all this chaff about Michael Ashcroft to try and create the impression that all political parties are as sleazy as each other.
The real issue here is corruption at the heart of the Labour party. Blair tried to reduce the influence of the unions over Labour policy by trying to raise money from a bunch of dodgy rich businessmen instead. When selling peerages for cash blew up in his face the party was forced back into the clutches of the unions. Thus we saw the UMF set up in 2004 and the cash started to flow. If Unite had not bailed out the Labour party financially then they would have gone bust and now we see a dubious assortment of Unite officials being eased into safe seats.
Thirteen years in and all you can do is say how awful the “wicked tories” are.
Will Straw
@dizzy_thinks I read @Daily_Ref 's article. Unite members have every right not to sign up to the political fund http://bit.ly/aVATg8