Ed Miliband's leadership campaign may not have the money that his older brother David's does, but he is sure that the support of 4,500 volunteers has made up for it. Figures released by the Electoral Commission today show that Ed's fundraising last month overtook David's by nearly £21,500.
Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign may not have the money that his older brother David’s does, but he is sure that the support of 4,500 volunteers has made up for it. Figures released by the Electoral Commission today show that Ed’s fundraising last month overtook David’s by nearly £21,500.
Today’s ‘slur’ in the Sun, which describes various unions of trying to “buy” Miliband junior suggests that they are trying to pay for influence.
“Unite spent £200,000 on pro-Ed letters to 1.1million members. It also spent £20,000 on texts. Ed’s campaign got £28,000 from the GMB in July, and a £105,000 donation from Unite will be confirmed today.
“In return, they want Ed to boost their power if he ever gets to No10.”
In an email sent to members last night, Ed said:
“We still need your help in these final days if we are to make our strong campaign count, win this election and show that we can turn those values into action for the people we serve.”
So far, the campaign has raised a total of £328,000 with £133,000 donated by trade unions and £95,000 coming from small donations.
Other payments disclosed to the Electoral Commission show that David’s campaign, which is said to have raised over £450,000 since May, has taken a variety of donations, including from unions. Ed Balls has had £100,000 donated to him by author, Ken Follett, and an additional £23,000 from donors such as the Communication Workers Union. Andy Burnham has taken £37,4000 from businesses and individuals, including footballer Jamie Carragher.
Diane Abbott is yet to disclose any donations.
All information regarding disclosed donations to all five candidates is available from the Electoral Commission.
25 Responses to “Sun’s false claim Ed M’s in the pocket of the unions”
Frank
The Sun piece was certainly reductive and unedifying; the reason Unite has spent so much is that that is has a large membership, hence the high cost of calling, texting, and mailing – there’s nothing particularly sinister in that. That said, this piece doesn’t make an argument that Ed M won’t be strongly influenced by unions, which is the Sun’s (hysterically articulated) contention. Simply citing the article, describing it as a slur, and pointing out that unions have been the single largest source of Ed M’s donations does not refute the contention that unions will seek special access to Ed M should he become leader, as they certainly will; whether they’ll get it is a separate (and potentially very interesting) article.
Simon
What is the point of labour if it doesn’t in some way consider the opinion of trades union members? The whole notion that it’s something to criticise is idiotic.
Michael Brannigan
Daniel Mayhew http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/08/poverty-equality-britain-incomes-poor Unemployment in 1979 was 1.07 million and increased at a ridiculous rates after Thatcher was elected. There may be an argument that it’s difficult to compare apples and oranges, but one thing is for sure this 30 year experiment hasn’t worked. Unemployment counting those ‘economically inactive’ is nearer to 9 million now. Fatalities at work are lower as an amount now than in 70’s but not if one looks at the difference in working practices and environments. There is very little heavy industry and construction is less labour intensive yet we still have somewhere in the region of 1.3 people dying per day in the UK compared with 2 in the 1970’s. ( http://www.hse.gov.uk)As for less of a generation gap, this statement I don’t understand. In general parents are older than their parents were when they became so. There are teenage parents and although a larger percentage than in the Seventies, again this is apples and oranges. The population is higher now and many teenage pregnancies were not reported as they are now. What I do believe is: that in general society is less societal and more individualistic
compounded with a greater degree of ‘me’ and not ‘we’ thinking. People, in general, feel they now have the right not to be offended, yet are more offensive in their ignorant consumption for the sake of self-satisfaction. As for needing Old Labour back, I feel what we actually need is a true Labour, a party that represents the majority. New labour was not that party and the Tories would never want to be. (They have rich friends to pander to) Ed is not the red under the bed. He’s more the blue from around the loo. As he stated himself on Channel 4 news, his second choice for Labour leader(the first being himself) was his brother David. Our David is as right as Tony Bliar and that’s just a little bit more right than Clegg and almost parallel with Cameron.
Alex Ross
I thought this article would refute the claim, rather than just say it’s a slur and leave it at that.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s in the pocket of the union, but rather the article just seems to be trying to make out Ed has more volunteers and small donations than David, which isn’t what the headline is remotely about.
Matthew Cain
This post doesn’t appear to be an analysis or a rebuttal. If there’s clear evidence that the Sun is wrong, wouldn’t it be better to say so rather than just characterise it as a ‘slur’?
Unfortunately for Ed, by having the support of unions which threaten to pull funding if he doesn’t win somewhat suggests that the Sun is more right than wrong. But I accept that’s not Ed’s fault.