It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Labour anger over funding plans

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:47 PM

Original Source
There has been an angry response from Labour MPs to the suggestion that there might be a £50,000 limit on political donations, including from trade unions.

Very interesting. Would this really make a difference though? Would corruption be rooted out from out government? Or is it simply an attempt to make the public feel that something is being done? Is it a fair action to take? Massively limiting the Labour partys funding capabilities.


[edit on 13-12-2006 by UKTruthSeeker]

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by UKTruthSeeker
Would this really make a difference though? Would corruption be rooted out from out government?

- The focus on Labour is not unexpected and is of course quite topical but I expect the effects of this to be much broader.

In the end I expect we'll see the end of large-scale private funding.

This will be of huge importance to the tory party.
For instance the current handfull of company owners/directors will no longer be able to prop up the tory party in the same way they have done.

But I have to say I find the notion that there is "corruption" in the British Government (in any meaningful sense) ridiculous.
If getting a gong is "corrupt" then we really need to redefine 'corrupt'.

Is it a fair action to take? Massively limiting the Labour partys funding capabilities.

- I suspect some will dream of and see this in the same way as they thought Thatcher's anti-Trades Union legislation would work.
By making trades unionists have to 'opt in' annually they imagined the TU's would wither and die through the apathy and inaction of their membership.
They also did the same thing with the TU's 'political levy' to the Labour party.
They were utterly wrong and the membership continue to choose 'opt in' annually.

I suspect the same will be true here; trade union members will continue to choose to fund the Labour party, whatever minor and short-term impact this might have.

It might even have the welcome spin-off of making the regular TU membership more engaged with the party.

I also expect what we end up with will be some sort of compromise (and possibly with a long period of phasing in).

[edit on 14-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:24 PM
Labour should break all ties with the TUC IMHO (even though my Dad is a member of a Union)

I know many Labour voters who disagree with the TUC trying to influence or control the Labour party. Yes, i know the TUC created the Labour party in the 1900s and has done wonders for the employement sector. but it should not be allowed to influence any political party. To be fair, any group with a large amount of cash should not use it to influence any political parties 'cause i think all here will agree that we do not want to end up like America.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:01 PM
Many Trades Unions have affiliate membership of the party and as such are absolutely entitled to have a say in Labour party policy
(and with TU legislation being what it now is the old days of union leaders wielding block votes as if they were personal property are long over.....if indeed it ever really was quite like that).

Provided this is done lawfully and democratically out in the open I can see no problem with this.

I can see nothing wrong with people who wish to give money to political parties doing so.

Providing it is done in the open.

I'll also agree with the idea of a 'cap' on individual donations so as to put a brake on the undue influence of the most wealthy individuals and organisations.

There is nothing wrong with 'vested interests' (God knows the world is full of them and we'll always have them) so long as their lobbying is done in the open and so that everyone can see it going on.

Just as TU's shouldn't exercise their members influence in secret (or without a legal vote by the membership) so big business should not be allowed to throw around the company finances in support of the tory party in secret (or without a lawful shareholder vote).....or any other party for that matter.

It's all about transperency IMO.

We'll never be rid of occasional questions on this matter but so long as everyone can see what is going on and it's all out in the open then we ought to be highly resistant to attempts at corruption.

We could also do with a reality check, we really don't have corruption by any credible usage of the term.
Political appointments to the HOL, for instance, are a perfectly normal part of the political process here.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:42 PM
No matter what system is used to fund parties, people will want to influence Goverment policy and if they see money as a means to their end, it will be used.

Goverment and corruption will always go hand in hand and no system of funding will get around it.

One could say that union funding of the Labour party is buying influence just as big business funding of the Tories is buying influence.

One thing I see is that business is no longer confirmed to funding just the Tories and appear to fund all the major parties.

I would certainly like to see a funding system that would enable smaller parties to get more recognition and to enable people who vote for them to see the impact of their votes.

new topics

top topics

log in