You are reading a single comment by @Haino and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
You can take the piss as much as you want but it's a statement of fact that Labour does not need the unions for funding
Yes, but who is going to fund the party instead?
Haino-
Yes, but who is going to fund the party instead?
There are a tonne of options which do not require us to be in thrall to the unions.
- we could have a subscription model above and beyond the membership model which frankly I find a bit of an anachronism
- we could follow the Tory model of donations from the world of business
- we could continue with the union model - albeit with a modernised relationship which confers no veto for them on Labour policy
- we could argue for political parties to be funded by the state - would require legislative change but frankly I can see a good argument for it
- we could argue to expand the current funding model for opposition parties from the Lords and the Commons - again not my favourite but its a realistic possibility
- one off fundraising is an option too - wouldn't want to base your whole model on it, but crowdfunding works
- we could pursue a mix of multiple options above - which I like a lot, as the more diverse our revenue streams are, the less we 'owe' one particular faction, and the more independent we can be with policy
This idea that if we want to be funded we need to grant people like Len McClusky the whip hand over voters / members is just nonsense. It's proven nonsense because Blair's Labour didn't have this as a feature of its party.
- we could have a subscription model above and beyond the membership model which frankly I find a bit of an anachronism
-
and how are their interests more valid than that of unions?
Can Labour be 100% funded by small individual member donations? And what's the difference? Its essentially then just become a giant union right?
ReekBlefs
n3il
The biggest danger to workers rights in the UK was Brexit, and the Unions tied Labour's hands to do anything reasonable about it.
You can take the piss as much as you want but it's a statement of fact that Labour does not need the unions for funding. It's also a statement of fact that Labour's affiliation the unions has been a fucking liability to our electoral chances. It's also a statement of fact to say that that cash for honours stuff was nonsense - the CPS found no case worth pursuing.
If you think union affiliation is good for Labour, make a positive case for it. I'm no Blair fan but I don't think his position on unions has yet been bettered.