The statement Ed Miliband won't be making following Labour's Co-op and Unite problems

****

"In recent weeks it has become clear that the Labour Party has placed its financial future in the hands of soft loans and contributions from trade unions.

The problem is that this disenfranchises Labour's membership by handing control of policy to funders - we attack the Tories for this but never look to our own problems.

Worse still, this situation is an offence to Labour voters. The millions of men and women from all classes, all ethic groups and every town who put their trust in the great party to provide leadership and direction for Britain.

So today I am announcing that the Labour Party won't be taking million pound donations from trade unions, will not negotiate soft loans with friendly banks to cover up financial weaknesses and will refuse to accept any donation bigger than £1,000.

There are eight million Labour voters. If each one gave us just £5, we'd have more than enough to fight a general election. And I'm sure there are many thousands of Labour people who'll give a little more - £50, maybe, for some, £500.

The message Labour will send British voters is that we will never again sell our party to the highest bidder, auction policies in exchange for finance or go cap in hand to friendly banks for soft loans.

The challenge I lay down to David Cameron is this:

Do the same. Join Labour in refusing to accept any more big donations. Make British politics better again. Remove the buying of influence that so distorts that politics. Refuse to accept any donation bigger than £1000.

If you don't the British people will know who's on their side."

With a few changes David Cameron could make this statement too - and it really would change British politics for the better if he - or Ed Miliband - did so.

....

No, no, a thousand times, no!

****

So Ed Miliband is in all sorts of a mess as a couple or three trade unions kick him and his party about, demanding policy changes, fixing candidate selections and generally behaving like the people who own and control the Labour Party.

The right response is to, as the saying goes, 'grow a pair' and deal with the problem. Instead, Miliband wants you and me - taxpayers - to pay the Labour Party's bills:

Any plans for state funding have not been drawn up, but could be modelled on a blueprint by the independent Committee on Standards on Public Life, which proposed parties be recompensed for a donations cap with £23m a year of public money. 

So some youngster on low wages, just starting out in life is expected to contribute to the funding of political parties - involuntarily? Put simply this is disgusting - because political parties have given up recruiting members and organising across the country (in favour of swanky London offices, shiny-suited Oxbridge graduates and endless, shallow spin-doctoring) doesn't justify simply dipping into the tax pot.

If you want to get the "big money out of politics" then what you do is agree a donation cap. And that's it. You don't need to compensate parties, you don't need complicated, corrupting formulae and you don't need to spend other people's money on PR executives and wet behind the ears policy wonks who have never held down a real job.

We don't pay taxes to fund politics.

....

Fixing the system: political parties, funding and privilege.

***

As you will know, dear readers, I have a slightly jaundiced view of the manner in which political parties are obtaining a constitutional position that extends beyond their established role as private organisations established for the purpose of promoting a particular cause.

We no longer need to clump together in class-based groups so as to protect our interests – we’re all pretty much middle class with much the same interests as each other. And in the main this interest involves keeping the Government and its agents out of our lives, getting on with raising our families, enjoying the house & garden on which we’ve spent all the cash the government leaves us after tax and not bothering our neighbours overmuch with our individual problems.

In truth we don’t need political parties. We don’t need to spend taxpayers’ money on sustaining the 1% of the adult population who join those parties. And we don’t need special protections or status in law for such bodies. If people like me want to join them that’s our business and we should not expect any privileged status or treatment for the organisation just because they are engaged in politics.

In the past few days, the ‘Committee on Standards in Public Life’ began a consultation on the funding of political parties – you can go play with this consultation on-line here. Now, although I care deeply about the manner of party funding, I am just as concerned about the assumptions being made by the Committee in framing the terms of their consultation.

Political parties are an essential part of the sound operation of the democratic process. They offer individuals a way to participate directly in our democracy and are the means by which voters choose between alternative policies and candidates at elections. Through government and effective opposition, political parties shape public policy. If political parties are to operate effectively it is essential that they are adequately and appropriately funded but it is also important that the means by which this funding is provided commands public confidence.

This implies a privileged position for political parties within our constitution – they are “essential”, they offer individuals “a way to participate” and are the means of choosing between “alternative policies”. And because of this particular, gatekeeper role Government should concern itself with the funding of political parties.

I don’t agree. I do not accept that political parties have any special position of importance and should be given any special advantage over other organisations – however those other organisations are constituted. The fact that the Labour Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade union movement means that I will never vote for it. But if those wealthy, protectionist organisations choose to fund a political party, that is their business – at least until the Government gives political parties a special position within our constitution. Sadly, the previous Labour government gave just such a privileged position to political parties and in doing so granted an advantage to the larger parties despite their rapidly declining membership. Today less than 1% of the population are members of political parties – and that includes all the funny little left-wing and right-wing grouplets that come and go like mayflies.

Finally, rather than focusing on income – on where a political party gets its cash – we should instead look at spending, at what the party spends its cash on doing. I have long argued that election spending should be exclusively at the constituency level – all national campaign funding should be banned and a reasonable limit on local spending used. That would get away from the “business/unions/rich foreigners are buying the election” arguments and would make independent and local candidates far more valuable and likely.

But this won’t happen now, will it!

....

Fixing the system: political parties, funding and privilege.

***

As you will know, dear readers, I have a slightly jaundiced view of the manner in which political parties are obtaining a constitutional position that extends beyond their established role as private organisations established for the purpose of promoting a particular cause.

We no longer need to clump together in class-based groups so as to protect our interests – we’re all pretty much middle class with much the same interests as each other. And in the main this interest involves keeping the Government and its agents out of our lives, getting on with raising our families, enjoying the house & garden on which we’ve spent all the cash the government leaves us after tax and not bothering our neighbours overmuch with our individual problems.

In truth we don’t need political parties. We don’t need to spend taxpayers’ money on sustaining the 1% of the adult population who join those parties. And we don’t need special protections or status in law for such bodies. If people like me want to join them that’s our business and we should not expect any privileged status or treatment for the organisation just because they are engaged in politics.

In the past few days, the ‘Committee on Standards in Public Life’ began a consultation on the funding of political parties – you can go play with this consultation on-line here. Now, although I care deeply about the manner of party funding, I am just as concerned about the assumptions being made by the Committee in framing the terms of their consultation.

Political parties are an essential part of the sound operation of the democratic process. They offer individuals a way to participate directly in our democracy and are the means by which voters choose between alternative policies and candidates at elections. Through government and effective opposition, political parties shape public policy. If political parties are to operate effectively it is essential that they are adequately and appropriately funded but it is also important that the means by which this funding is provided commands public confidence.

This implies a privileged position for political parties within our constitution – they are “essential”, they offer individuals “a way to participate” and are the means of choosing between “alternative policies”. And because of this particular, gatekeeper role Government should concern itself with the funding of political parties.

I don’t agree. I do not accept that political parties have any special position of importance and should be given any special advantage over other organisations – however those other organisations are constituted. The fact that the Labour Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade union movement means that I will never vote for it. But if those wealthy, protectionist organisations choose to fund a political party, that is their business – at least until the Government gives political parties a special position within our constitution. Sadly, the previous Labour government gave just such a privileged position to political parties and in doing so granted an advantage to the larger parties despite their rapidly declining membership. Today less than 1% of the population are members of political parties – and that includes all the funny little left-wing and right-wing grouplets that come and go like mayflies.

Finally, rather than focusing on income – on where a political party gets its cash – we should instead look at spending, at what the party spends its cash on doing. I have long argued that election spending should be exclusively at the constituency level – all national campaign funding should be banned and a reasonable limit on local spending used. That would get away from the “business/unions/rich foreigners are buying the election” arguments and would make independent and local candidates far more valuable and likely.

But this won’t happen now, will it!

....

Of course the Unions own the Labour Party - they always have...

Why do we act so shocked and surprised at the fact that the Labour Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement? Apart from a fleeting moment under Tony Blair the party has always been controlled by the unions. After all, the unions set the party up – it’s their plaything.

Any Labour Government is a government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions. There might have been a day when this came close to being a government representing “the people” but today it is not. According to the Government’s own statistics:

“Private sector union density fell by 0.6 percentage points to 15.5 per cent in 2008, whereas public sector density fell 1.9 percentage points in 2008 to 57.1 per cent.”

And most of that private sector union membership is in privatised industries – air travel, gas, water , electricity. In the rest of the wealth creating sector, trade union membership is rapidly approaching zero. Any private sector employee voting Labour is voting for a Government controlled by and operating in the interests of public sector trade unions. In other words, voting for higher taxes, more regulation and more bureaucracy.

....