I have just returned from one of my regular trips to Jordan where I am working on a political development project. Nothing much happened while I was away did it?
In Jordan we hosted a well-attended meeting of all the political parties to talk about building membership and campaigns amongst other things. We covered the importance of a fair and balanced range of sources of political funding and the role of a vibrant strong opposition in a democratic system. In one way, we were hypocrites as our own government was revving up to make a major attack on both in our own country.
The Jordanian party representatives complained about how difficult it was to raise enough money and asked us about our own experiences.
In talking about Labour, we obviously explained how the party grew out of the need for political representation of working people and that lifelong relationship explains the funding that comes from unions to our party. What would be more difficult to explain is why a link which has been recognised over many years is now under blatant political attack in a country which is supposed to pride itself on a pluralist political system.
Today, we see yet another manifestation of the real impact of losing elections – the first stage of an anti-trade union bill so party political that Vince Cable has been clear that he resisted many of its measures when he had policy responsibility.
It is a bill which further restricts the right to strike, which demands that trade unionists submit their communications plans for approval by the state and which limits the ability of reps to engage in sensible workplace negotiation. All of these should be resisted but it is the changes to political funding rules which will have a disproportionate impact on Labour. The bill’s proposal to change from a political fund opt-out to an opt-in will have a devastating impact on Labour’s funding. This is not a measured cross-party consideration of the vexed issue of party funding – it is a partisan onslaught on Labour
And it is not the first time it has been considered. Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Tories as recently as 1998 felt it was illegitimate to pursue such a route. At that time, in the review of party funding they said:
‘The question of trade union funding of parties is not a matter of direct concern to the Conservative party. We recognise the historic ties that bind the trade union movement with the Labour party.’
An elected government has the right to govern. What is does not have the right to do is to undermine the very basis of legitimate opposition to it. That is not governing, that is destroying our democratic system.
One of the many admirable things about Liz Kendall’s leadership campaign was her stark warning that the Tories would be out to destroy us as a party through any means possible. Jeremy Corbyn deserves congratulations for his victory and for the numbers of people he has attracted to the Labour party. However, they will not be enough to fund us as a campaigning opposition and certainly not to fund an election campaign. Another of the thankless parts of being leader of the opposition is having to fundraise – I hope he has got a plan.
———————————
Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @Jacqui_Smith1
———————————
Pretty sure all the candidates for leadership spoke about how dangerous this bill is tbf, and I would guess they all recognise how difficult fundraising is going to be if it passes. I guess the one advantage Corbyn has is that he will push membership up way above where the other 3 candidates would have taken it. Those subs will be more important than ever.
Fund raising? difficult but not impossible. What about a good clearout, of all those videos Jacqui, fill the Range Rover and get down to the car booty.
Now I know what your thinking, and the answer is no, we will never forget and we will never get tired of reminding you.
You are I am unafraid to tell you always going to be reminded of that expenses claim. It will be your political epitaph. There is nothing you can say or do that will change this. Think about it? When The Home Secretary is caught making a claim for the hire of porn videos on expenses what do you honestly expect. It is funny.
No number of reasonable and impassioned articles on Progress is going to change things. Your past actions and lack of judgement will live with you. Your career as a serious political figure is no more. Accept it.
Some people remember how members of the NUM dropped a concrete block on a taxi driver and how union official Kim Howells admitted destroying evidence. The attitude of unions that members can get away with murder destroys goodwill for the movement.