The link between the Labour Party and trade unions is not just about funding. It provides a vital transmission belt between politicians in Westminster and the heartlands. The trade unions gave birth to the Labour Party and both partners have gained from this organic bond ever since. Representing over eight million members and their families, they give us a direct link to millions of hard-working people. If we shun their importance, together with the subscriptions and donations from hundreds of thousands of Labour members, we risk becoming a party that is remote, out of touch and, ultimately, out of office.
The motives of some of the people within our own party who are calling for state funding of political parties need to be questioned. The tiny, yet vocal, minority of former SDP members that wanted to break the link with the unions in the late 90s through PR and a merger with the Liberals are at it again. This time they re pinning their hopes on Electoral Commission chair Sam Younger calling for a cap on all donations over a certain, small amount. Undoubtedly, this would break the trade union link, a backward and hugely unpopular step both within the party and amongst the wider public.
Union political funds in the UK are, in fact, the most regulated in the world. Members vote in a full ballot to establish them and keep them running and members can also vote at their conference to affiliate or disaffiliate to a political party.
We already have a degree of state funding for politics from free delivery of election manifestos to salaries for MPs and their staff. In fact, short money for opposition research has recently been increased so that the Tories now get £3.5 million and the Lib Dems £1.1 million. Asking people to pay for MPs is one thing, but subsidising political propaganda would be too much for the vast majority of taxpayers to stomach. How could we justify diverting resources from our schools, hospitals and transport system to bankroll multi-million pound election campaigns?
Labour has always faced a shortfall in the years following a major general election campaign but we shouldn t throw the baby out with the bath water. We should cut back wasteful spending on billboards and party political broadcasts, which don t sway any votes during a campaign, and reduce the national limit on election expenditure. A greater number of small, personal donations from ordinary party members or supporters should be encouraged, perhaps with some tax relief. After all, donating to a political party is a healthy activity.
Voters would become even more distrustful of, and disengaged from, the political process if they knew their money was being spent on party machines and operations for which they had real distaste in the first place. Nor would it end perceptions of sleaze, as recent funding scandals in Germany and Italy have shown.
Moreover, how would we decide how much each party gets and where would we draw the line? Can we conceive of a situation where the BNP receives government handouts? The Prime Minister is right to say that state funding would be impossible without cross-party support. But it will never get it.
Any party that imposed state funding on an unwilling electorate would subsequently be punished at the polls. And any party that promised to abolish the scheme would probably be swept to power at the earliest possible opportunity. Wacky think-tank researchers will be pushing this next big idea in the run up to party conference. Let s hope that, on this issue, the electorate have the final say.