That Starmer fella...

You are reading a single comment by @bens0n and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

ReekBlefs in reply to @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.

•

bens0n in reply to @ReekBlefs

The party's finances were in an absolutely woeful state by the end of the Blair years, and it looks like they are heading that way again now.

This is from a recent Guardian article:

We haven’t got the small donors that Corbyn brought and haven’t got the big donors that [Tony] Blair had. We’re trapped between the two worlds.”

That aside, this post is either pure fantasy ('crowdfunding for an election campaign') or just plain naïve: if you rely on big donors 'from business' for your funding then they are going to want something in return. And I guarantee that what they want is not going to be good for the people that Labour is supposed to represent (the clue's in the name). That's if you can even attract them in the first place: which fractions of capital do you propose to try and win over, and how, for instance? How do you ensure their long-term support for the party?

As to getting individual members to simply pay more (an updated subscription model, as you suggest), what is the incentive for them to do this, especially if you're eroding what little democratic purchase members currently have? Contrary to what this forum might suggest I don't think the country's full of people with cash burning holes in their pockets

•

ReekBlefs in reply to @bens0n

if you rely on big donors 'from business' for your funding then they are going to want something in return

That's precisely my argument against relying on the unions for funding - all you've done is shifted the target. (As it happens, I have as much of a problem with business donors dictating the direction of the Labour party as I do unions, it's just that the unions have been more of a problem in this way over the last five or six years.)

The whole point is that a divergent revenue stream - one which CAN include the unions and business and crowdfunding and member donations and the like but does not RELY on any one too much - is the only way Labour can be politically agile in the way it clearly needs to be to turn its fortunes around, AND fairly and accurately balance the requirements of different statekholders within a policy matrix.

No one group should have the whip hand over Labour policy. The unions have for the last four or five years. That's the point.

About

Avatar for bens0n @bens0n started