Let's Talk About Party Funding, Baby

Christ on a bike, Westmonster thought she was the only one embracing the hot flushes associated with onset of the menopause, but it seems as Francis Maude can't keep his mind off The Sex for a single second, even when discussing the breakdown of the party funding talks:

We are disappointed that the trade unions still hold Labour over a barrel. The unions are running the Labour party from the back seat, giving them control over Government policy. Labour has rejected a comprehensive cap on donations and clearly do not want to end the big donor culture which has caused the 'cash for honours' scandal. Labour just want a backroom deal that gives them taxpayers' cash without proper reform. This would do nothing to restore public trust in our democracy (hat tip Iain Dale).

Unions holding Labour "over a barrel"? Sexy swine. Anyhoo, as Mr Maude's ramblings cover quite a serious issue in terms of British democracy, they're worth a little further examination.

Now, playing all distressed at this "cynical" outcome is a leeetle rich, given that the Boy David tried to knacker the talks a couple of weeks ago via a letter he sent to Brown (which mysteriously found its way into the press even before it hit the Gord's welcome-mat). The letter demanded the destruction of the trade union link as a precursor to the continuation of the talks. To quote Unlock Democracy:

The Conservative objection appears to rest on the idea that trade unionists should be capped more heavily than rich businessmen, which is manifestly not equitable.

Basically, the approach of the Tories can be summarised thus:

We want donation caps rather than spending caps because our rich donors can easily find a way around these by getting family and friends to distribute munificence on their behalf - something that the heavily regulated trade unions are unable to do. Spending caps (which is essentially what is being proposed), on the other hand, would really piss all over our key seats strategy, and deliver a real level-playing field which is something we want to avoid if possible. Since we cannot say this out loud, we're going to throw all our toys out of the pram and withdraw from the talks whilst pointing at those smelly proletarian union boys and claiming that they are still running the Labour Party. Which is patently untrue, but here's hoping the public buy it, eh?

It's not a bad strategy, truth be told. And as for Maude going on about this all being part of a nefarious Labour plan to introduce state funding, may I direct readers' attention to this post of yesterday which details the humungous amount of taxpayer-funded Short money already being trousered by a certain political party. Which, you ask?

Why, that would be the Conservatives.

Written by Lloyd Shepherd on 31 Oct 2007 12:55 PM. Permalink