The funding muddle
James Forsyth 11:48am
The issue of party funding is going to run and run with the parties still nowhere near an agreement on it. In an interview with the Telegraph today, Francis Maude makes an astonishing charge about the opaqueness of trade union funding for Labour: "It's a racket, there are two unions which declare more members paying the political levy than they have members."
If Maude is right, then this is a huge scandal.
The Tories, however, will never be on firm political ground on party funding while Lord Ashcroft’s tax status remains unclear. Maude tells the Telegraph he has “no idea” whether Ashcroft does pay tax in the UK and that Ashcroft’s tax status is a “matter for him.” But the public clearly has a right to know whether a member of the House of Lords and a deputy chairman of the Conservative party is paying UK tax in full or not.
If the Tories want to be able to go after Labour for its excessive dependence on the unions, then they will have to resolve the Ashcroft question first.
Previous
Comments
Richard Shackleton
March 22nd, 2008 12:14pmSorry Jamaes this story is so old that it's got whiskers. Unions have habitually and historically "oversubscribed" to the TUC and the Labour party for decades in order to boost their clout. This was particularly useful in the good old bad old days of the block vote. Jack Jones (T&G)used to be quite open about it to industrial correspondents..."I want to be a trades union duke not just a trades union baron!!!".
Diversity
March 22nd, 2008 12:23pmThe Tory position is still worse at second glance. To all appearances, a key and substantial part of conservative campaigning is being paid for out of money Lord Ashcroft obtains by dodging UK taxes. For Labour, the pretences and dodges that seem endemic in their Trade Union funding probably do not include tax avoidance; the mess coming reluctantly to light in their donations and loans quite possibly does.
mike
March 22nd, 2008 12:30pm"The issue of party funding is going to run and run" Only here friend, the general populous gives not a rats .....
Cassius
March 22nd, 2008 1:42pmmike 12.30pm How do you know the populous [sic] do not care? Surely what you really mean is you don't care.
mike
March 22nd, 2008 3:21pmI refuse to reply to a pretentious plonker going by the name of Cassius. Oh well just this once, I refuse to reply...........
Chuck Unsworth
March 22nd, 2008 4:35pmWhat about the 'Development Funds' paid to unions by the taxpayer? Is this not our money being paid through the back door to be disgorged into Labour Party coffers? Let's see some proper accounting for a change, eh? Oh, and Mike, are we discussing populous or populace?
Nicholas
March 22nd, 2008 4:49pmNo, mike is referring to the fact that his left-leaning friends in the BBC bury the story and the Commissar of the New Labour State Police won't investigate it and if he did the Corrupt Prosecution Service would decide that there was little chance of a conviction and the matter should be dropped.
Trumpeter Lanfried
March 22nd, 2008 5:08pmWhat is it with Ashcroft? Why doesn't he stop playing peek-a-boo and tell us what the position is. At the moment he's a walking propaganda gift to Gordon Brown.
Terry
March 22nd, 2008 5:27pmCan't understand the Ashcroft issue in relation to political donations. I can understand it is an issue with his peerage, because he promised to pay UK taxes when he was elevated to the Lords. I agree that political donations should be transparent but not that they should depend on the amount of tax you pay, which should be private, anyhow. I do not think the public are exercised about this matter, nor about the donations from TUs. However,the idea of public money going to political parties would unite almost everyone in outrage.
Tiberius
March 22nd, 2008 6:20pmmike; what's wrong with a pretentious name like Cassius?
Fergus Pickering
March 22nd, 2008 6:33pmYeah. Let's hear it for pretentious names. Fergus, I'll have you know, is a King of Ireland. Mike is... well, I wouldn't let my daughter marry a Mike. A Dave maybe, but not a Mike.
Max Kaye (with caps please).
March 22nd, 2008 6:39pmTiberius, maybe Cassius is 'pretentious' because it is capitalised. 'mike' seems to dislike capital letters: presumably because they are not sufficiently egalitarian or right-on.
mike
March 22nd, 2008 8:00pmTiberius mike; what's wrong with a pretentious name like Cassius? Now then Tibby stop being silly. Chucky I was referring to a densely populated area where folk think trying to win an argument by pointing out that a pensioner who left school when he was 15 can't spell. You win, I can't spell, punctuation is also beyond beyond me alas. The argument you just lost for being a nasty chappie. Nicholas, nowt to do with the BBC, retired Insurance Agent who was born in Durham. That was where Maggies lads in blue kicked the miners silly and destroyed the lives of thousands. But you'll remember it differently I have no doubt. Don't talk of New Labour State Police sunshine, I remember women and children starving when The Nasty Party was in power. Let those who were there make sure nitwits like you are not allowed to forget. Maggie out, Cameron out,never again.
TGF UKIP
March 22nd, 2008 9:44pmNot just mike who's "egalitarian" it seems, as it transpires from this interview that redistribution is now oficial party policy. Tax and spend, redistribution, underfunding of the armed forces, political correctness ad nauseam and some of you lot have the cheek to whinge when I refer to them as Blue Labour!
mike
March 23rd, 2008 11:04amTGF UKIP "oficial" What ?
Nicholas
March 23rd, 2008 12:11pmmike, yep, I remember it differently and I was there too! But then was then and now is now - New Labour are now the Nasty Party however unpalatable that is for a diehard Labour man like you - actually they have completely betrayed the ideals of the Labour Party. What they masquerade as is difficult to put a name to. mike, you are the blog equivalent of a heckler and I like you. Go for it! Did you support Scargill too?