No more union funds for CLPs?

rwendland Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:38:43 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

A report is out saying Labour want trade unions to stop giving funds direct to CLPs, and send all funds to the national party - but the unions are resisting this. Anyone know anything about this?



The report, at the end of this This is Money report by Nicholas Cecil, is:

Labour was also plunged into a row with unions today as it battles to tackle what is believed to be a £20m debt. The unions are resisting a proposal for all funds raised by four million trade unionists affiliated to Labour to go straight to party HQ, stopping union bosses deciding how the cash is spent by local parties.

Millionaires who lent Labour huge sums have also been asked to wait almost a decade to get the money back.

Update: Should have checked Peter Kenyon's blog who covers this. It is a Hayden Phillip/Jack Straw idea related to avoiding a £50k cap, covered in The Guardian. GMB would consider disaffiliating over this, as not all members support Labour and they would object to unspecified general use of political funds.

Millionaire donor's story is in the Daily Mail in more detail. Nine-year rescheduling of the loans being sought. That would still leave around £1 million/year interest being paid for 9 years, on top of repaying the ~£20 million of loans eventually - so we'll be still paying for the 2005 election through the next two general elections. Nice one Blair, Levy & Co. Fits well with a credit-card middle England culture I suppose.

Update2: Peter Kenyon reports that the rescheduling of debts is essential to ensure the accountants can sign-off that the Labour Party is a going concern in the accounts. I notice from the Electoral Commission website that Christopher Evans has already been paid off on his £1 million loan, seemingly from an increased Co-op Bank loan. So it seems he did not want to reschedule the debt - hopefully the others are more amenable.



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
No more union funds for CLPs? | 43 comments (43 topical)

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#1)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM GMT

For once I am complete agreement with Paul Kenny, General Secretary of my union.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#2)

by lastword on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:44:20 AM GMT

Incredible.  HQ has got a bloody cheek!  The unions have my full support in totally igonoring this ridiculous idea.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#3)

by Graham on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM GMT

I hear from people high up in the GMB that they are very serious about this.

The worst part is that if this ends up happening and as a result big unions disaffiliate, then we'll all suffer - the party, the unions and their millions of members, and working people across the country.

I hope that's understood across the party.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#4)

by treborc on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM GMT

What party is that Labour or New Labour, I've been a member of Labour for 38 years, now I left two years ago because of the Welfare reforms. But Labour are desperate to bring in state funding, it is hoping to make a break from the unions, if not then it show the complete lack of understanding how people are starting to hate Labour. I have been a member of UCATT and now the GMB it looks like we will have a ballot on leaving Labour, my political levy already goes to charity.

Boy has things gone down hill so fast.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#5)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM GMT

Can I just get this straight - are they seriously proposing a 50K cap on each union's funding?? I.e. would Unison only be able to give 50K to Labour in total? If that ever happens, I'd cut up my membership card - it's completely insane. I'm all for excluding the influence of the wealthy, but excluding all influence, by anyone? Is that democratic? Union money is the cleanest in politics! How in god's name is it wrong for large numbers of people to choose to donate small amounts of money to a party which (allegedly) fights for their interests? Should politics be just about professional politicians fighting for our votes? I was under the impression Labour was different precisely because the union link embodies our solidaristic values, and our status as the party of normal people, not politicians. I am just baffled as to why we would want to limit ordinary people's influence on politics...I may have got this wrong - could someone enlighten me?


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#6)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM GMT

Exactly.

Lots of bad news stories in the press about dodgy donations and loans.

Who takes the flack? The transparent, democratically accountable union contributions from millions of working class people.

Disgraceful capitulation to the Tory agenda.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#7)

by rwendland on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM GMT

Trying to think thru the rationale for this.

I suppose the national officers have decided it is impossible to get the loans converted into donations, or raise this amount of donations from other millionaires. My guess is the plan is to force thru state-funding, and that over 9 years there will be enough surplus, if we are careful with money, to pay off the Blair&Levy loans. This of course means the Tories, and maybe LibDems as well, can outspend us for the next 9 years. Tough medicine for the 2005 general election blow-out. And terrible for Labour Party members influence on the party officers and PLP.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#8)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM GMT

Surely that implies an obscene amount of state funding? Surely the public would rather that those who explicitly chose to support parties could do so, rather than everyone regardless of their party. I certainly don't want any of my money going to the Tories. State funding suggests parties have a right to exist independent of their members - they DO NOT! A party should only be as strong as its members: that's why we need caps on individuals' donations - that way, all parties are on an equal playing field and those with the most support will get the most money. That's democratic, open and fair - state funding is wasteful and anti-democratic.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#11)

by rwendland on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM GMT

I agree with you there. I'll probably leave if there is state funding, as there seems about zero chance of ordinary members having any influence on the career party cadre then.

There is the big practical difficulty of how on earth to pay back £20 million. And until we reorganise these debts, a group of these millionaire's could probably bring the party down by demanding repayment in the courts. I see from the ElComm website that Christopher Evans has already been paid off his £1 million, with an increased Co-op bank loan. So the pressure from some of them must be on.

I don't know if it is practical for unions to cover the debt over 9 years?

2006 party expenditure was £26 million, so paying off £20 million + interest over 9 years is only about 15% of recent normal expenditure. If the state paid most of that, it is probably doable.

If this was a business, the rationale thing to do would be to go into liquidation, and start a fresh outfit. I'd get a certain amount of pleasure from former party officials explaining in the courts how they had power under the party constitution and trustee law to enter into such large debts. But politically it would be a killer.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#9)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM GMT

Just go the whole hog and bring in state funding and don't let the unions, businesses or millionaires fund us at all.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#10)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM GMT

Here comes the loon...


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#16)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM GMT

Nice to see you're keeping calm and mature during this debate.

Looks like the government's policy seems to be moving more and more towards this "loon's" beliefs.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#18)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:46:11 PM GMT

I know, depressing isn't it?


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#12)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM GMT

There is absolutely no moral or democratic rationale for doing so, NM - none whatsoever. Parties are there to represent sectional interests - how on earth is that wrong? You seem to have this bizzare idea that any kind of influence is wrong - but how is that so when it's ordinary people giving tiny amounts of their hard-earned money? I agree business/millionaire funding is wrong, but how can you possibly conflate that with union funding, which is transparent, accountable and based on individual choice? Why are so keen to destroy the party's link with the people who created it, and the people who it's for? It's so sad.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#13)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM GMT

He calls it 'bribery'.

On the same linguistic basis, if I hire someone to service my boiler, I am 'bribing' them to do so.

Absolutely nuts.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#14)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:54:26 PM GMT

Right...so by paying my membership fees I am bribing the party to consider my views - how presumptious of me! Surely they should be considering only the views of middle-class swing voters in key seats, rather than those of members and affiliates? If only the bribe worked NM, that's all I can say!


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#15)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM GMT

Indeed. Some more effective 'bribing' by TU Gen Secs and we might have a Labour Party worth the name.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#17)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM GMT

If each individual union members actually paid a small donation to the Labour party completely separately and expected no favours in return, then your point might be valid.

But instead, it's the union bosses who decide where the funding goes and they're the ones who threaten to hold the money back if Labour doesn't follow their agenda (see the Warwick Agreement). Make no mistake about it, that is bribery.

This has nothing to do with the constitutional link between Labour and the unions, this is to do with whether rich individuals or organisations should be allowed to offer cash to parties in return for policies. As a firm believer of democracy, I say this isn't acceptable. And what is sad is that you think it is acceptable only because it favours your particular political position.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#19)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:54:40 PM GMT

Expected no favours in return? What planet are you on? The party exists because of and for the trade union movement! The Party should be following the union agenda - not perfectly, as there are other elements to the party as well, but they should be key elements - surely you want our policies to be influenced by union priorities? When you join an affiliated union, it is clear that you are giving your political fund money to Labour - how is that any different to what you propose? Except that with the union link, people have a body to defend their interests in the party. No-one has to pay into the party political fund - what's the problem?! Paying in to an organisation and expecting something in return is not bribery! Especially when that organisation was founded explicitly to defend your interests. You clearly misunderstand democracy: with small individual donations, as in the union case, the quantity of money received by each party is proportional to their popularity. And it hopefeully allows ordinary people with small amounts of money to gain a degree of political power they would not otherwise have. Note that far more people pay into the pol funds than join the party - they want their interests defended but don't want to be as actively involved. State funding takes the power away from these ordinary people and puts it in the hands of party leaders - how is that democratic? I am utterly baffled by your idea that none of us - the sectional interests the party is meant to represent - should expect any 'favours'. Next you'll be saying the poor shouldn't expect Labour to defend them, nor the public sector or the working class - because that would be favouritism wouldn't it? I'm completely dismayed by your views on this.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:34:47 PM GMT

Well I'm completely dismayed by yours.

The party exists because of and for the trade union movement!

The party was certainly created because of the trade union movement but I don't agree that the party exists today solely for the trade union movement - it depends what trade unions want to do. Can you honestly say that Blair's and Brown's number one interest as Prime Ministers have been to help trade unions? No, of course not. That's because people expect Labour to be a bit more broad in its appeal these days. We should lift up all poor and disadvantaged people regardless of whether they're in a union or not (more likely 'not' these days). Even if the trade unions were the sole reason for the party's existance today, that doesn't make it acceptable for these organisations to pay for policies. We should adopt many of the trade unions policies, but because we want to, not because we're being paid for it.

When you join an affiliated union, it is clear that you are giving your political fund money to Labour - how is that any different to what you propose?

Because each of those individuals does not get to decide where the money goes - it is the bosses who decide. And they can exert massive influence just because of the amount of money they hold. They can hold the party to ransom with millions and millions of pounds. If political levy payers got to choose which party their money goes to, when it goes to them, whether it goes to the local party branch or the national executive etc. that might be more tolerable.

But what I'd like to see is optional state funding where each voter has £3 of state money to give to a party each year (or none at all) and party members too can make very small donations on top of that. This way no individual holds extra influence over government legislation because of the size of their wallets.

Paying in to an organisation and expecting something in return is not bribery!

No-one said it was. But telling a party to adopt certain policies to be enacted in government in return for millions of pounds is.

with small individual donations, as in the union case, the quantity of money received by each party is proportional to their popularity.

But they are not small individual donations, because those individuals do not get to decide where the money goes once handed over to the union bosses. It is the people at the top of the unions who take the decisions for everyone who's donated.

State funding takes the power away from these ordinary people and puts it in the hands of party leaders - how is that democratic?

Rubbish. State funding is far more democratic given that each citizen is able to offer an equal amount of money and no-one can exert great influence because of how much money they have (is that not a principle socialists and social-democrats are supposed to believe in?). We truly would have a situation where the amount of funding a party has is proportional to its popularity. All people would have equal power in deciding which party gets the most money and all party executives can do is choose how to spend it (like now).

I am utterly baffled by your idea that none of us - the sectional interests the party is meant to represent - should expect any 'favours'.

What? I said people shouldn't expect to be able to get favours in return for handing over millions of pounds, nor should they say to a party leader 'I'll pay you £2million to adopt this policy for government' - why can you not understand that? If you think that democracy and government policy should be controlled by a few very wealthy individuals and organisations, then shame on you.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#20)

by Free Radical on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:46:11 PM GMT

Northern Monkey - you seem not to believe in collective action at all. Fortunately union members believe differently and despite the introduction of ballots on political funds in an attempt to castrate unions' political influence, members have always voted to retain political funds. So once again perhaps the masses have more sense than you give them credit for...


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#23)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:05:48 PM GMT

And how many people do you think don't bother joining a trade union because they know the union will end up making huge donations to Labour? It's no wonder union membership is so low these days.

And to find out what the 'masses' want, you don't ask those who hold the influence whether they want to keep that influence - you need to ask the country as a whole. Ask the entire country in a referendum whether it thinks it's acceptable for unions to fund Labour in exchange for policies and let's see what their answer would be.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#21)

by doctordunc on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:38:27 PM GMT

only because it favours your particular political position

For the most part, union interests in the party have favoured the right  (sometimes seriously bailed it out against left-wing CLP activists) - but I still support it because it's an integral aspect of the Labour Party.

Your logic could be applied to members too, couldn't it?  Why should we get to vote on candidates and leaders, etc. (well not always leaders...) or have a say on policy, just because we've paid our membership fee and expect something in return?  It's bribery!


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#22)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00:39 PM GMT

There's a world of difference between a member paying a few quid a year to join a party and union bosses (or indeed a millionaire) giving the party millions of pounds in exchange for policies.

Members' joining fees are individually so small that no single member can exert enough influence over the party leaders to change policy to how they want it to be (as it should be). With union funding, it's the bosses who hold all the cards and they tell the Labour party to adopt certain parts of their agenda or no money will be dished out.

Now this is bribery and I'm sure you know that. But what's even worse is that it maintains the principle that those individuals and organisations with the fattest wallets hold the most influence. Not very socialist is it?


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#24)

by doctordunc on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:11:06 PM GMT

Our membership fees are small (in the scheme of things), that's why we organise as CLPs, and regions, and internal party pressure groups, to try and exert influence.

Union members opt in to the political levy in affiliated unions, therefore making small payments to the Labour Party.  (I used to get the affiliation cheques for my CLP, for smaller branches we could talking about tiny sums of money, and individual trade unionist payments are similarly tiny).  They are organised of course, that's the whole point of trade unionism - but I don't accept for a moment that it's bribery. 

I think large individual donations are a different matter.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:41:41 PM GMT

Our membership fees are small (in the scheme of things), that's why we organise as CLPs, and regions, and internal party pressure groups, to try and exert influence.

Ah, but that influence does not depend on money, does it?

The Chair of your CLP does not phone Gordon Brown up and say 'I've got thousands/millions of pounds here from my constituency party members and I'll give it to you if you promise to adopt this policy'. (At least I hope he / she doesn't!)

Your CLP works collectively to make your voice heard to the party leaders - but that's fine because there's no money involved. Therefore it isn't bribery. Your CLP is not threatening to withdraw funds if something isn't adopted by Brown. That's the crucial difference.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#29)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM GMT

Well membership fees overall make up constitute a significant part of the party's income (members contribute in other ways too of course, but then so do trade unions/trade unionists).  If the membership were to threaten to leave that might be an even bigger threat than unions disaffiliating.  So, in neither case is there a bribe or a threat; in both cases there's an understanding that you join a party (or affiliate to it) because you want to play a part in that party's activities and policy-making and you think it will essentially act in your interests or act the way you would like it to.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#31)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:57:36 PM GMT

No, but the way members and union members contribute donations to the party are very different.

There is no leader of the ordinary members who can withdraw the total membership from the party if they don't agree with what the leadership are saying. It's up to individual members to decide if they want to no longer pay their membership fee. In other words, no one individual member can exert excessive influence over party policy because of the size of their joining fee. However, the union levy fees do not get paid individually to the party - the union bosses donate en masse and can hold strong influence over government policy because of the large sums of money involved.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#27)

by treborc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:43 AM GMT

I think it will fail, already the GMB are saying they will ballot it's members to disaffiliate from Labour, this has been coming for a while with the GMB because of the closure of Remploy factories and the failure to help Agency workers.

I think as I said before Labour are pushing Unions to leave Labour, so they can then say well look we have to have state funding. I think Brown has lost his way totally.


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#28)

by e10rifles on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:34 AM GMT

I notice Northern Monkey is full of the right wing tabloid crap about "union bosses" on this thread.

Union bosses are elected every few years and are bound to implement the policies adopted by the union conference. That is about as democratic as anything can be, and where it isn't, that is up to the union members to sort out.

"That's because people expect Labour to be a bit more broad in its appeal these days."

And that's the heart of the issue. I think Labour should be by and for working class people. You think it should become another centrist quasi-Tory party appealing to "aspirational middle classes".


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#30)

by serenitynow on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM GMT

I agree that the term "union bosses" is provocative and unwarranted.

Despite all the rhetoric what NorthernMonkey fails to mention is which policies have Union bosses demanded that have been adopted under duress by the Party/PLP to the detriment of working people?

The reality is that despite millions of pounds of funding  trade unions have not secured legislation to protect agency workers, repeal Thatcher's anti-trade union laws or halt the closure of Remploy factories.

So if none of these trade union demands has been met  where can an allegation of bribery arise from?


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#32)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM GMT

Well I agree that Labour hasn't implemented many of things that the unions wanted.

But at the Warwick Agreement the intention was that Labour would agree to certain policies in exchange for cash.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#34)

by serenitynow on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM GMT

But this undermines all your rhetoric about bribery and undue influence - the hint is in the name Warwick Agreement.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the transparency of Warwick, it wasn't secret like other 'cash for honours/influence' allegations.

In terms of democracy which you are so keen to promote, if the electorate had thought the agreement  was about undue influence or bribery then they could have voted the government out.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#38)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:53:46 PM GMT

Ha! So just because it has the word 'Agreement' in it, that makes it all right! North Korea refers to itself as a 'Democratic People's Republic' but as we all know, there's nothing 'democratic' about it!

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the transparency of Warwick, it wasn't secret like other 'cash for honours/influence' allegations.

The fact that it wasn't secret, and indeed no attempts were made to keep it secret, shows how bad things have become. The union leaders openly offered cash for policies and this is supposed to be acceptable?

In terms of democracy which you are so keen to promote, if the electorate had thought the agreement  was about undue influence or bribery then they could have voted the government out.

Not if the other parties are just as bad they can't.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#40)

by serenitynow on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM GMT

North Korea?

The word Agreement is relevant because New labour and the Labour movement signed up to it in full public view, making it open, accountable and transparent, unlike anything in North Korea.

The union leaders openly offered cash for policies and this is supposed to be acceptable?

If the electorate believed that the Labour government was implementing policies that they hadn't endorsed then that would be undue influence or bribery - however they were endorsed by the electorate at the 2005 election.

In reality unions secured an agreement that a LABOUR  Government would implement policies that are consistent with Labour policies, manifestos, principles, which ultimately benefit working people.

That is not perverse course of action - what you clearly don't like is the nature of policies, not the process used.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#33)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM GMT

Why do you go from one extreme to another? I don't want Labour to become a quasi-Tory party, but nor do I want it to become a party which is solely for the working classes at the expense of everyone else.

I'd rather we were a progressive social-democratic party which aims to lift up the poor and disadvantaged rather than knock down the rich.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#35)

by serenitynow on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:27:36 PM GMT

No extremes at all.

You have raised the issue that trade union funding constitutes bribery. I just want evidence that this has occurred and if so what policies have been passed.

So far you can't point to any.

I never suggested the party should exclude  consideration of anyone else in society, you made that assumption, which was your mistake not mine. 

As for this comment

I'd rather we were a progressive social-democratic party which aims to lift up the poor and disadvantaged rather than knock down the rich.

it's a truism that can be applied to many people in the wider Labour movement so therefore not worth much.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:04 PM GMT

I think you'll find that reply of mine was to e10rifles, not to you.

But regardless of that - the evidence is the Warwick Agreement: union bosses tell Labour to agree to certain policies in exchange for cash. Whether Labour actually carried out all of the policies after that agreement is irrelevant.

And unfortunately, there are many in the party who aim to hurt the rich until the 'pips squeak' and I don't agree with that.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#41)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM GMT

Monkey - the interests of the employer and the employee are irreconcilably in conflict under a capitalist system. That is true whether or not you agree with it.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#42)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:38:09 PM GMT

Well no it isn't true. And the majority know it isn't true.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#43)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM GMT

You'll have to do better than that as an argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#36)

by Wiseman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM GMT

Dear Northern

This party was born from the working class struggle against oppression see LRC history.  All I can say is that without the unions there is no Labour party because we are one in the same thing.  If we realised were we are from the FBU, RMT and other unions would reaffiliate and financial problems over.  Unite pumps several million pounds into this party more than any city fat cat or private donator.  All we ask in return to look after all people including working or middle class eg a decent living wage, no discrimination, equality etc.  It is not much to ask.

Gordon please wake up!!!!

John Wiseman
Executive member and TULO St Helens South and Whiston CLP


Re: No more union funds for CLPs? (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:58:55 PM GMT

It isn't much to ask wiseman and indeed the Labour party should do all of those things.

But that has nothing to do with where we get our money from.


[ Parent ]

No more union funds for CLPs? | 43 comments (43 topical)