David Cameron is planning to restrict Trade Unions ability to donate money to the Labour Party by compelling them to ask members annually whether they want their money to go into the political fund, and thereby (where that union is affiliated) potentially be donated to the Labour Party. Conservative Home is predictably salivating with glee that this could well bankrupt the Labour Party. That aside, what possible objections could any principled person have to asking union members whether they want their union to give money to the Labour Party? Well I have several.
Firstly, unions are campaigning organisations that work for the greater benefit of their members. Some unions (but certainly not all) feel that this campaigning role can be enhanced by giving money to the Labour Party- certainly a Labour government has benefited their members at work directly let alone the myriad improvements to the NHS, schools, and policing that makes life outside of work that much more tolerable. Anyway, I digress. The point I’m trying to make is that people become members of a union because they feel that on balance it will make them better off. If the fact that their union donates money to the Labour Party becomes so intolerable for them, they have two options; leave (and join a union that doesn’t give money to the party) or, given that the trades unions are democratic bodies, stand for election on a platform of disaffiliating from the Labour Party. To say then, as the Tories seem to imply, that the political fund is used against the will of many union members is simply disingenuous.
More broadly, politicians of the right have a penchant for direct democracy when it’s on issues they feel that they can get a knee-jerk response on (Lisbon, capital punishment, etc) but we should see this for the reactionary politics it is. We elect MPs in order to delegate certain responsibilities and allow that person to become better informed on topics than we could become. The whole point of representative democracy is that we pay people to read the green papers, the draft bills, the think tank reports so we don’t have to. Likewise, a Labour government might well be unpopular with certain union members at certain times, leading them to question why it is their subs are funding the party, but union members elect representatives at all levels who have more time to be reflective over the Labour affiliation. To restate an earlier point if they still don’t like it they can either stand in elections themselves, vote for someone who will change the status quo, or join a union that is not affiliated.
The original 10 year consultation period was nothing more than an attempt to reduce the amount of money given to the Labour Party by cashing in on periodic discontentment; reducing it to a year has exactly the intent. How many of those who opt-out opt back in? In the same way that non-unionised employees benefit from the concessions, rights, and improved conditions won and paid for by those in their workplace who are union members, allowing union members to opt out of the political fund has the same effect. It promotes the free-rider. What if I think that Sandra in head office is spending too much time on the phone and not enough time on union business? Can I have an annual ballot on Sandra’s contract? I’ve just purchased something from one of Lord Ashcroft’s firms- can I stipulate on the receipt that he doesn’t use any of the profits to bank-roll the Tories? Or, despite the availability of free schools and hospitals, I make the choice of going private- can I have some of my tax back (hang on a minute, that one actually used to be Tory policy- remind me, who wrote the 2005 manifesto?)?
With this policy then, as with other Tory initiatives from reducing the number of MPs (populist, and benefits the Tories) to equalising constituency sizes,* the Tories are dressing naked opportunism that will gerrymander the political system in their favour, as principled politics. Trades Unions are democratic bodies that campaign for the rights and conditions of their members. Those same members are free to use and participate in that democracy at any time. Failing that, it doesn’t take very long to cancel a direct debit…
____
* as an aside, the Electoral Commission already does this. That Labour constituencies have less voters is less because of some vast left-wing conspiracy, but merely because (a) it takes time to redraw boundaries and (b) the broader demographic shift is away from urban (Labour) areas to rural (Tory) areas. However much compensation there is at any given election (and the Tories will make gains based on the new constituency boundaries in place for this year before any change in voting patterns comes into play), this will always be slightly behind the curve of the reality on the ground.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 14, 2010 at 9:52 pm
stevenradams
A couple of points:
it’s misleading to say that the Tories are gerrymandering boundaries in their favour — they are seeking parity. There is a distinction.
You make the point that those who opt out don’t opt back in (apathy perhaps) but then go on to say don’t worry, it’s perfectly democratic — after all people can always cancel their DD. Do you not see the inconsistency here?
Reducing number of MPs … maybe populist but then we have more rep’s per head than any other in Europe I think, so this may just be sound whilst also levelling the electoral playing field. Why do you portray levelling as seeking advantage whilst spending the rest of the post lauding democracy?
If unions were truly democratic they would use funds to affect campaign efforts against all parties. Or they would reflect the wishes of members (over half of which see Labour as irrelevant according to ICM). They are not democratic, they are dogmatic.
February 15, 2010 at 8:45 am
Dave Semple
Solid article Andy. There’s a few points we might quibble on. Right-wing politicians have less a penchant for direct democracy and more of a penchant for plebiscites. This is difference; one allows the collective exercise of power, the other allows low-level intervention in a debate, the terms of which have been decided elsewhere.
This is why the Right always seem interested in it so opportunistically; when you remove the space in which people relate to each other, rather than individually relating to the mass media narrative or the State, then the reaction tends to be Right-wing, Conservative. It also helps that certain Right-wing narratives are the ‘benchmark’, largely due to the ideological incompetence and ineffectiveness of the left-wing press.
Beyond that, I think you hit on a phenomenally important point with regard to the disparity between Labour and Tory donations. Politics is naturally biased in favour of Capital, as wealthy individuals wield a great deal more power than ‘average’ individuals. This requires collective associations to re-balance the playing field. Hence, the Unions – which set up the Labour Party.
In response to this tit Adams, above, anyone who doesn’t think political affiliation to the Labour Party is a hot-button topic is a moron. If ICM suggest over half of members see Labour as irrelevant, it’s because even in the huge unions like UNISON now there are strong moves afoot to disaffiliate and build a party further to the Left. Thus far, it’s only electoral sharp practices within some unions that have prevented more moving the direction of the FBU and the RMT, the disillusionment because of Labour’s move Right is so great.
So this little jingo, “not democratic, they’re dogmatic” is just laughable.
Even if it were true, however, why do we have a Right wing lambasting the authoritarianism of Labour and yet preparing to regulate the rules and actions of private members’ groups? That’s opportunism.
To hear Liberals and Tories whining about the Labour-Union link is so much sour grapes, and reflects either a disingenuous denial or a stoneheaded unwillingness to recognize the class nature of society; there’s a working class and a ruling class.
When we’re organised, motivated and can win concessions for workers workplace by workplace, the Tories tend to react by trying to eviscerate the unions, the party-union link or enact monetary policies designed to harm manufacture and aid finance, then act shocked when their vote in militant working class areas collapses upon itself due to unemployment and the victory of the very ruling class the Tories exist to support.
The link should be pretty obvious.
Sometimes I wonder what our finest universities are churning out these days.
February 17, 2010 at 12:36 am
stevenradams
So many things to say but typing on an iPhone so will be brief.
Firstly, don’t be a child: address the topic
and don’t throw insults around (unless you don’t care that it cheapens your argument).
Your first point, regards direct democracy and predetermined terms, is of course utter crap. Indeed the irony that you make this point whilst defending a funding regime with that cd only plump the coffers of one party is astonishing — and compounded by Labour’s expedient re-engagement with a love of electoral reform.
Your second point, that TU funding is fair as it rebalances the playing field is not backed up by your colleagues’ habit of questioning the morality of large donations. Both must be acceptable if they are to balance (accepting your terms for argument’s sake).
And finally to address the point where you call me a tit and a moron. You’re wrong. The two polls I’m referring to talk of a proportionate nearing 50% of those questioned considering/definitely voting Tory. Hardly a leap to the left.
The fact is that you ARE dogmatic where many unionised workers are not. The fact is that it is the dogmatic union leaders who predecide the terms of the debate whether that regards party funding or ballots.
Oh, your last assertions that the Tories dismantle manafacturing and promote finance. Where have you been for 13 years? In fact, where have you been for the past two years during a crisis caused by this govt’s overreliance on finance and neglectful policies apropos manafacturing? A crisis that is harming
the poorest the hardest at a time when Labour’s policies have widened the gap between them and the richest in society.
February 15, 2010 at 8:49 am
Dave Semple
Oh and on the electoral stuff…I agree with you. If there is a ‘natural pace’ for reform, the electoral commission seem to have found it.
Increasing the number of people per representative seems stupid to me – and arguing that we should do it because “we have more rep’s per head than any other in Europe I think” is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Is there a competition somewhere on who can have the smallest parliament?
More representatives per head of population is a good thing. It increases the representative-ness of the Westminster system.
Personally I’d like to see the House of Lords dissolved and the unicameral Commons doubled in size by halving every constituency. Parliament would remain exactly the same size, yet a face-to-face relationship with our MP would be easier as they’d be charged with representing fewer people.
February 17, 2010 at 12:48 am
stevenradams
I didn’t say increase number of ppl per rep ‘because of other countries’, I agreed it shd be done as part of creating parity across constituencies to avoid situations such as in 2005 where Lab are storming away with stonking majorities on only 35% share.
Paying heed to other countries’ per head stats is a useful comparator though and not dumb at all; just another piece of evidence to weigh in.
I take the point below that the federal system changes things, but ultimately I’m not debating the democratic deficit created by overworked/unrep’tive MPs, but by constituencies with inbuilt party advantage because of their size (which feeds through into a systemic weighting in favour of that party).
February 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm
colenotdole
Steven, the Labour Party was born from the Trade Unions- that’s why the link is there. As for more rep’s per head, this stat is used in a slightly misleading way (dubious use of stats seems a Tory vice of late)- it totally neglects the fact that we don’t, across the board, have a regional layer of government whereas European countries do. Whilst I’d like to see some devolution to regions, whilst we still have the current arrangements it is only right to make good that deficit with extra representatives on a national level. And Dave, I’m a unicameralist as well, but like my Republicanism, I’m resigned to working within the current system for the forseeable future…