However, I have a lot of sympathy with with the arguement that it is immoral to create a law that treats Union donations any differently than donations from any other organisation. We can't just treat them differently because we think they're "good".

How would we feel if the Tories decided that business donations should have preferential treatment on account of business's "incalculable contribution to the growth of the nation's economy, which benefits all"

And I'm in a Trade Union by the way.

"got totally unexpected agreement from Glass House"

What's that supposed to mean?
Or is it just the usual "Glass House is on the right of the party and therefore has no morals" rubbish?

Johnson, like most Blairites ministers I would guess, wants the link broken, or at least wants the unions to have a lower proportion of the electoral college vote.

I am not questioning the traditional link between the trade unions and Labour per se.  My question is to what extent the relationship is dependent on the transfer of funds from one to the other.  If there is a financial dependency (Labour would go bankrupt without it, the unions would lose what little influence they have), then we need to question whether this is acceptable, just like any other form of party funding.  If there is no need for the financial link, then why defend it?  Arguments by the likes of TULO that an attack on the funding link is a means of destroying the entire union-party relationship are, in my opinion, spurious.  

You quote John McTernan as saying that opting in to the levy is "totally unacceptable".  Why? Because it risks demonstrating that the political levy is less popular than the current opting in process suggests?  I may have put that rather provocatively, but it's a genuine question.

Call me cynical, but I think that the enthusiasm of senior government figures to defend the status quo is really about avoiding a damaging public bust-up with the unions, and the delicate matter of a multi-million pound overdraft.

In the last post on this subject, I said that I recognised that the most likely alternative to union funding - state financing - was not necessarily any more palatable with the public than the current situation.  But this debate is increasingly convincing me that state financing is the right way forward.

Mike Griffiths, Chair of Labour's National Executive Committee  NEC, has issued a statement  on behalf of the full NEC. He said: "Labour Party has led the way in introducing transparency into British politics culminating in the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act (2000). We therefore welcome the Hayden Phillips inquiry into the future of political funding.  The time has come to end the "arms race" on election expenditure, with a cap on what parties can spend, nationally and locally and for the lifetime of a parliament. The Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) is therefore encouraged by the proposals from Sir Hayden regarding the principle of reducing the spending of political parties. After consulting with Party members, the Labour Party Conference in 2006 unanimously approved the Labour Party's detailed submission to the Review on the Future of Party Funding currently being conducted by Sir Hayden Phillips.  

"The position of the Labour Party, at all levels, has been and remains that as set out in our submission. This position was reiterated by the Prime Minister attending the Parliamentary Labour Party Committee on Wednesday where he made clear that nothing should break the historic link between the Labour Party and the Trade Unions. The NEC therefore rejects those proposals from Hayden Phillips that clearly neither respect nor understand the structures and constitution of the Labour Party. In the Labour Party submission to the review we express the view that any changes need to be workable, respect differing party structures and constitutions and should not reduce fairness and equality by giving one party a funding advantage over another. For that reason, in our submission we made it clear that the Labour Party cannot accept a statutory uniform donation cap as proposed by the Conservative Party.  This form of donation cap would quickly become unworkable logistically and diminish the political voice of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists at a time when all parties are concerned with widening political engagement. It would also undermine the Labour Party federal structure and seek to amend a system of Trade Union contributions that is already highly transparent and heavily regulated. Officers and officials of the NEC will continue to vigorously pursue the Labour Party's position in all discussions with Sir Hayden Phillips."