Over the years there have been all manner of official reviews on the funding of political parties. Behind all the waffle about 'funding democracy' and creating a 'level playing field' they all have one central aim in common - to break the link between the Labour Party and the trade unions.
However, the starting point for the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in parliament now considering this question has been the issue of capping donations from 'outside sources' to parties. The Labour Party has even sent out a consultative document on party funding. Certainly many will be concerned about the high levels of individual donations from wealthy supporters being made to all the main parties, including Labour. The quite reasonable assumption being made is that these people are getting something back in return for all this sudden generosity. After all does it not seem odd that people who quibble about even quite modest pay increases for their workers should be equally able to bung millions of pounds towards political parties without even batting an eyelid? The recent Loans For Peerages scandal has provided one answer to this question.
Needless to say the main beneficiary of these huge individual donations has always been the Tory Party with its close links to big business and the old feudal relics of the landed aristocracy. So it does seem strange, at first glance, that Tory leader David Cameron should be proposing a £50,000 cap on individual donations. But do not be fooled. TULO, the umbrella organisation covering the unions affiliated to Labour, has pointed out in its submission to the parliamentary committee that, in 2004, 271 individual Conservative Associations in the constituencies raised a grand total of £17 million between them to add to the £20 million raised at a national level. TULO speculates that given the capping on spending at elections, most of this cash would have been surplus to requirement and therefore be available for use by the Tories at a national level. But, of course, what Cameron is really getting at is the issue of trade union funding of the Labour Party.
He wants the £50,000 cap to apply to trade union donations as well, despite the fact that this money largely represents affiliated membership fees from millions of workers to the party. The Tories tried to undermine this by forcing the unions to hold ballots on whether or not a part of members' subs should go to the Labour Party or not. Unfortunately for them (and those fringe elements who claim there is no difference between Labour and the Tories) rank and file members of the unions have voted massively and repeatedly to pay affiliation fees to Labour. TULO warns that such a cap would, if unions were to be treated the same as individuals, cut union funding to Labour by £39 million over a four-year period.
Attempting To Break The Link
This would be crippling and leave the party open to increased reliance on donations from wealthy individuals and state funding. The Blairites and the Tories would be delighted. The Blairite clique has long dreamed of breaking the Labour-union link and turning Labour into some sort of clone of the US Democrats funded by - and therefore for - the ruling elite. To date they have failed. But the blanket imposition of a cap could provide them with another opportunity. State funding would be central to all this. Despite the right wing hatred of the public sector, both Labour and the Tories have been happy to accept state money. Indeed at present, if you take into account the so-called Short Money given to opposition parties to help them in their 'work', the Tories have sucked £14 million out of the public purse over the last 3 years. It is not hard to imagine a long list of places this money could have been better spent.
Both the LP NEC submission and TULO have argued against attacking the affiliation fees. The NEC document muddies the water by rambling on about investing in democracy and establishing a dodgy sounding 'Foundation For Democracy', all very uninspiring stuff intended to sound Blairite without emphasizing the union funding issue. The labour movement must not fall into these traps. This is another attempt to further disenfranchise the working class. The ruling class and their shadows in the Labour leadership can never be reconciled to the idea that Labour is the political wing of the trade union movement.
TULO whilst making some good points argues that neither the unions nor the party membership have any actual influence over the government so everything is OK. This is a disgrace. The membership of the party and the unions - the two wings of the workers' movement - should have a decisive say. Instead, Blair and co take their orders from unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable bankers and businessmen. This is what capitalism means by democracy.
The fact that Labour is funded by the working class should not be a source of embarrassment but of pride. For the state to use the issue of wealthy bungs as an excuse to attack the link between Labour and the unions is a disgrace and must be opposed.
The task should be to build trade union affiliation to the Labour Party. These links should be strengthened and increased with workers demanding a greater say over those who govern supposedly in their interest. The time has come to reclaim the party from the Blairite carpetbaggers who sit at the top. Blair's well-heeled chums with their chequebooks should be sent packing. Labour must adopt a socialist programme and leadership - that in itself would see off the big business donors who would suddenly get cold feet about their largesse. The call should be: Labour defend Labour, one Tory party is quite enough - actually one too many!