everyone has forgotten..

that bit where the government were taking £250,ooo for a “chat” with the pm to influence policy. I’m not that clued on politics like Ernie, but surely this won’t get ignored and swished under the carpet?

Aye all the guff that came straight after did a good job of diffusing it. Can’t even remember what it was…

The Trades Unions pay Labour more. Not really something that they want to draw too much attention to.

Of course it will be – they sacked the guy who said it and claimed it was all hyperbole and not true. A few attacks have been made on it and some embarrassing stuff come out but it will be no killer blow

redfordrider – not comparable at all for a whole load f reasons not least that its clear above board and democratic

what are you on about redfordrider? massive scaremongering petrol non crisis to diffuse a situation the government created to whitewash illegal corporate wrongdoings.

Well we had the governmnet fueled non fuel strike and multi media press reporting

Now we have will they or want the teachers strike, then theres the tax credits being reduced, and a few other non stories that are going to flood the media.

and as we speak the Home Office computer being hacked by naughty people, just because they can.

it just makes me feel a bit hopeless about the f****** C**** in charge and how they are controlled. anyway that’s all I’ve got to say.

The funding of political parties needs reform. Wealthy donors, Trades Unions and Lobbyists all exert ‘undemocratic’ influence on politicians. Nothing is for free.

yes, you are right. but when the government is caught red handed getting cash to influence anything, policy or ideology by private corporations it’s important to spread the word that the government is corrupt.

until they ban former ministers from taking multiple pseudojobs with big corporations after they retire we may as well stop whining about a few party donations

redfordrider – there is nothing undemocratic about the unions funding of political activity. Its open and above board and both the union as a whole has to vote on it and the individuals can opt out.

Shareholders don’t get any opportunity to decide if companies contribute to political parties.

Its not so much as being corrupt,but they actually believe its not wrong what they have done,where as they agree to send peeps to jail for stealing trainers, or using a hosepipe.

project – Member

Its not so much as being corrupt,but they actually believe its not wrong what they have done,where as they agree to send peeps to jail for stealing trainers, or using a hosepipe.
Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post

It’s all about knowing the rules of the game and better still if you actually make those rules.

stealing some trainers or twocking a hosepipe is a miniscule illegality compared to the corporation illigality that goes on everyday.

I really don’t care abut it. It wasn’t a surprise.

But the ones in power dont see it that way, they make the rules and they dont agree to abide by the rules.

I’m fairly sure that we haven’t heard the last of ‘come dine with Dave’
He’s pissed off Murdoch too much recently

Am I the only one who would expect at least dinner back if I donated such a large sum?

they want a bigger yacht. it’s not about the rules it’s about respect.

‘undemocratic’ influence on politicians

Sponsoring politicians to represent your interests in parliament is perfectly democratic. In fact it goes to the very heart of democracy. Politicians aren’t there to represent themselves.

The cash for access scandal has nothing to do with that. Despite your best attempts to suggest that it has redfordrider.

Love this :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTREllOger4

TandemJeremy – Member
redfordrider – not comparable at all for a whole load f reasons not least that its clear above board and democratic

The political levy is opt out not opt in, you can’t do something as harmless as market to someone in that way these days, everything is opt in as default.

Where is the democracy? despite being a member of a union for nearly 20 years there is no democracy, they never contact me they just take the cash. Never once have I been asked to whom should the political levy be paid, nor the other cash donations from general funds that go to the Labour party at national or local levels or to individual MP’s.

Is it above board?

Not a single union publishes a full list of political all donations or spend in kind (bill boards at election time etc), be they levy or general funds or other cash to all the parties, campaigns, MP’s etc

Sponsoring politicians to represent your interests in parliament is perfectly democratic. In fact it goes to the very heart of democracy. Politicians aren’t there to represent themselves

It was called cash for questions a few years ago. I wonder why many MP’s don’t declare an “interest” when debating certain issues? Do they think the union cash will discredit their argument?

What union big n daft?
I just went to my union’s website and looked at the accounts and it showed their political donations both there and in various articles that came up in a search.Many MPs are also sponsored by unions AFAIK and are not afraid to say so.Just google it

Where is the democracy? despite being a member of a union for nearly 20 years

Why are you in it, then? There are no closed shops in the UK any more, right?

Never once have I been asked to whom should the political levy be paid

:D I think you’ll find that a trade union makes decisions based on the union’s policy, if you don’t like where the money is going why don’t you move a resolution at your branch that the next national conference changes its policy so that your union helps fund the Tory Party, which is presumably what you would like to see happen.

That’s how this funny thing called “democracy” works. You’ll also find a clue in the word “union”, ie, you do things “together”.

Failing that why don’t you just do that ever-so hard thing of “opting out”. Yes it involves doing something as opposed to not doing something – do it think you can manage to do that ? Or have you been too busy for the last 20 years to get round to doing it ?

And when you’ve done that, or even before you have done that, you can hand over all the money you want to the Tory Party. A simple solution which allows your money to go to where you want it to go.

Of course all of this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread and the OP’s opening comment. But then big and daft, as a dyed-in-the-wool Tory the last thing you want is people to talk about the “cash for access” scandal which forced the Conservative Party Treasurer to resign in disgrace.

So anything to steer the thread away from that awkward and embarrassing topic, and hopefully onto another one which involves bashing the trade unions.

No one has condemned the Tory party for taking donations from wealthy individuals. The Conservative Party Treasurer Peter Cruddas did not resign because the Tory party received donations from wealthy individuals. David Cameron condemned without any hesitation what had happened, and Peter Cruddas immediately resigned in disgrace, because of totally unacceptable revelations concerning cash for access.

Don’t try to pretend that it was nothing more than innocently giving donations to the Tory party. It clearly wasn’t that.

yes, you are right. but when the government is caught red handed getting cash to influence anything, policy or ideology by private corporations it’s important to spread the word that the government is corrupt.

As i said at the time, it’s pretty much universal across all parties – it’s expected and nothing unusual, even if it’s undesirable to the voter.

So – why, exactly, did Ken Livingstone donate £19k to the Labour Party, via his Silveta company?

What happened about the “Cash for Honours” scandal? It appears that if you give money to a Labour Government you get a knighthood or a seat in the Lords; give money to a Tory Goverment and the best you can hope for is a meal downstairs in the kitchen. Seems counterintuitive.

el Che – I think that Trades Unions do stirling work. I also think that Labour are embarrassed that 80-90% of their party funds come from donations from the TUs; which is why the story has not been followed up. labour stands to lose the most if party funding were to be reformed and donations capped to about £10,000.

I like lots of Labour’s policies, but I’d also like Ed Miliband to condemn irresponsible and oppurtunistic talk of strikes by TUs at a time of deep economic crisis. Our elected representatives should act in the national interest rather than in those of their major financial backers.

So what is it exactly that upsets us here? Is it the fact that parties are funded by those whose interests they (are supposed to) represent or us it the size of the actual contribution that leads to the concerns over buying influence? Or is it something else? So we have decided not to have a state funded model and parties face the challenge of falling membership revenues and rising costs especially at election times. So the Labour party receives substantial funding from unions and the occasional surprise backer and the Tories receive funding from “big business” for want of a better term. Stop me, when I should be surprised…..

Teamhurtmore – perhaps its not a surprise your beloved tories have been caught being corrupt. Its no suprise to me.

Redfordrider – I’d be quite happy with an even playing field. If donations from businesses had the same strict conditions as union donations do then the tories would lose a lot of funding.

Did you know that when the previous tory government forced unions to be more democratic about their donations the amount of donations went up? I don’t think its as high as you think either.

Druidh, leave Ken out of this. After all he said,

“No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in our parliament, unless they are paying their full share of tax

I agree with him.

TJ – I am not sure why (although not surprised) you choose (1) to personalise this and (2) assume my allegiance but there you go!!

My actual point is apolitical. I am merely voicing surprise that (1) people have an issue with political parties receiving funding from those that they represent and (2) asking whether the actual issue that challenges us is not the type/source of donation but its size and fears of buying influence.

On the one hand, I am persuaded by Simon Jenkins comment that ““the moment a democratic organisation loses not just its commitment to but its dependence on its members it begins to atrophy. That is what has happened to political parties . . . But it is so central to democracy that if these parties lose touch with their members by no longer depending on them for money, they will cease being what I call active political parties. They will become like European parties, which are just adjuncts of the people in or out of government”

On the other, and despite my scepticism about the ability of politicians OF ALL PARTIES to allocate resources efficiently and appropriately, I am also pursuaded by the arguments for capped, state funding. The whole manifesto differences between the parties is an expensive charade. Strip away the rhetoric and what are the real differences in hard shillings and pence between Labour and Tories – very, very little. And the Lib Dems are also finding out the harsh realities between being in the easy life of permanent opposition and the harsh reality of executing power. Stop wasting money on this expensive charade would have my support.

teamhurtmore – you have shown your allegiance to right wing dogma on many occasions.

Your point is very party political equating the open and democratic union political levy with the secretive influence pedalling exposed here. This is once more you following a piece of right wing dogma.

Do you ever learn the lessons from your bans?

I have not been banned for pointing out the truth :-) You continually espouse a right wing neolibeal viewpoint with blind acceptance of right wing dogma. Fair enough – thats your right. But when you claim this is apolitical then it deserves to be challenged.

I think that Trades Unions do stirling work. I also think that Labour are embarrassed that 80-90% of their party funds come from donations from the TUs

:-) Why would they be “embarrassed” ? Trade unions are not illegal criminal organisations you know, in fact according to you they do “stirling work”.

Labour has nothing to be embarrassed about the fact that the organisations which formed it still funds it. What you are trying to do redfordrider, is follow the well established Tory Party line of sowing into people’s heads the idea that Labour “should be” embarrassed about receiving money from the TUs, because unions are some sort of disreputable semi-criminal organisations.

True, when the hard right seized power in the Labour Party Tony Blair, for very understandable reasons, wanted to be less dependent on the trade unions and more dependent on “filthy rich”, as his sidekick and the lord of the dark arts, scandal-ridden Baron Mandelson called them.

And New Labour did become much less dependent on the trade unions as a result of that shift and somewhat dependent on the filthy rich instead. Of course predictably, the filthy rich soon abandoned New Labour when it became clear that they would no longer win elections and went back to supporting the Tories, forcing Labour to again become more dependent on support from ordinary working people.

But since you want to make the comparison between the donations which the Tories receive and what Labour receives let’s do just that, shall we ?

Property tycoon David Rowland has given the Conservative Party £1,380,936.52 since May 11th 2010 (a week after the last general election) Not bad for one individual eh ?

Now contrast that with what an individual member of UNITE donates to the political fund through his or her political levy, which is £00.14 per week, yes that’s right – 14 pence per week. In the case of a BECTU member he or she donates £00.03 per week to the political fund.

So, I’m quite happy, and I’m sure many people would be, if a limit was placed on how much one individual can donate to a political party, say……I don’t know – 20 pence per week maybe ? Like that everyone will be happy.

Except they won’t all be – the Tories won’t be. Because of the numbers involved it will be stacked against the Tories favour. It’s this damn thing called “democracy” which gets in the way again, ie, the will of the many has a disproportionate influence over the will of the few. And the Tories have an unswerving determination to serve the will of the few.

Having said all that, I think the trade unions which are still affiliated to the national Labour Party should disaffiliate. It makes no sense at all that they should continue to support a political party which refuses to give them any support or fight for their interests. The political funds should only be used to support candidates and local parties (not just Labour parties) which are prepared to speak up for them.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread, which STW’s very own Tories have managed to steer away from. As I said previously, Peter Cruddas did not resign as Treasurer of the Conservative Party because the Conservative Party had received donations.

So let’s remind ourselves what the issue really is about :

David Cameron condemns Peter Cruddas cash-for-access claims

“The Prime Minister, interviewed as he prepared to run a mile for Sport Relief this morning, criticised Peter Cruddas for what he said were “completely unacceptable” claims, said he was right to resign and promised a party inquiry“

Obviously not!

ernie_lynch. Very interesting stuff – I didn’t know a lot of this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it in such detail and clarity. I value your experience and perpectives. Do you need to be so condescending?