Funding reform: over to you, David

Credit where credit is due. Ed Miliband has shown bravery over reforming the trade unions, the very demographic that was so influential in electing him as leader of the Labour Party in 2010. The electoral college and bloc vote has been abolished, and ‘one member one vote’ is now in place, something which SDP “gang of four” member David Owen called for back in 1981. In my own party, I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are neither puppets of trade unions nor big business, but this raises a new question; will David Cameron now be serious on party funding reform?




Firstly, a brief word on the sensible trade unions reforms. As David Owen put it back in 1981 at the Labour Party conference, “to allow the bloc vote to choose the future Prime Minister of this country is an outrage”. The stifling effect of the militancy tendency and cognate groups over the Labour Party in the 1980s was obvious, but even after reforms under John Smith and Tony Blair, Miliband’s recent quote highlights the pragmatism of the current reforms and the unfairness of the previous system; “nobody should be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so”. Even Len McCluskey, the leader of the largest union Unite, agrees; “If I am asked on the television ‘how come you affiliate one million of your members when you know 400,000 of them don’t vote Labour?’ I would not be able to look the interviewer in the eye”. The reforms are long overdue.




In my view, the Tory response has seemed a little desperate. Grant Shapps rather bizarrely states that the reforms are "a big victory for the unions, increasing their powerbase and ensuring they remain the dominant players in Labour politics for years to come”. The trade union influence has been a potent stick to beat Labour with over the years; the Conservatives may yet have lost that weapon. The focus is now on the Tories and the influence of individual wealthy backers; are they prepared to tackle their own vested interests? Nick Clegg said that seven meetings were held between 2012 and 2013 over party funding reform, but these broke down due to Labour not moving on trade union funding, while the Conservatives would not make concessions on big donations. Labour are ticked off the list now; what about the Tories?




There’s an opportunity now to paint the Conservatives as increasingly out of touch. I’ve observed over the years the see-saw motion of the two main parties sledging it out over funding, and I’ve agreed with both; Labour were far too reliant on union funding, whilst the Conservatives were too dependent on the influence of individual wealthy backers and big business. The albatrosses around the necks of the big two meant that funding reform couldn’t be productive; the Tories could always deflect criticism of their funding practices by turning the fire back on the unions of Labour, and vice-versa. However, the Conservatives cannot play this game anymore. Nevertheless, (many) questions must still be asked of Miliband; will he support electoral reform? He supported the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign, yet he could not carry over the majority of his party on the issue. PR is, of course, the ideal target, but Miliband can’t ignore that AV (along with union backing) was crucial in him winning the Labour leadership in 2010; if the results of that campaign were based on First Past the Post and the first round of voting, then David Miliband would be leader of the opposition. It would be cynical for Miliband to defend the status quo after this beneficial movement (although David Cameron does the same thing despite owing his election as Tory leader in 2005 to a variant of AV). Carrying the Labour Party over electoral reform would also show bravery.




Now is the time to cap political donations at £5,000. The obstacle of trade union funding has been overcome, and crucially it’s time to tackle big money in politics. One of the reasons why people feel that the political system is out of touch is because the voters feel so far removed from the unfair influence of a few wealthy individuals. Let’s tackle party funding reform once and for all. Over to you, David.