Andy Burnham must face down unions over donation cap | Party funding

So much for a new way of doing politics. Even before parliament had convened under his premiership, Andy Burnham had already stumbled at the first hurdle (Burnham drops support for political funding cap aimed at curbing mega-donors, 26 August).

Despite widespread support for hard caps to political donations, and despite years of affirming support for such measures, a whisper of opposition from the union lobby has produced a screeching U-turn.

It is no use promising to return power to the people via devolution, employee ownership and so on, and then refusing to address the power of the big beasts of the politics of yesteryear. Come on, Andy! If you are to make any impact on reversing the appalling effects of Thatcherite neoliberalism, you are going to need to show more bottle than this. You should immediately support Stella Creasy’s amendment – and throw in a commitment to a national commission on electoral reform.
Paul Sawbridge
Ealing, London

The GMB union’s opposition to a cap on political donations raises a question that goes beyond the immediate dispute: when does legitimate defence of an organisation’s interests become defence of a political system that gives that organisation disproportionate influence? Trade unions have a legitimate role in politics. But political finance should ultimately be governed by the democratic interests of citizens, not those of organisations. The same principle must apply to wealthy individuals and corporations.

There is a troubling historical precedent. In the 2010 Labour leadership election, the GMB was one of the unions that backed Ed Miliband against his brother, David. David led decisively among Labour MPs and party members, but Ed won overwhelmingly in the union section and ultimately became leader by just 50.65% to 49.35%. The unions did not single-handedly determine that result, but their mobilisation was crucial. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the GMB has reflected on the consequences of using its organisational power to influence Labour’s political direction.

Ed Miliband’s leadership was followed by Labour’s defeat in 2015, the return of Conservative government and years of austerity. His defeat also formed part of the political sequence that culminated in the Brexit referendum. To say the unions “caused” these outcomes would be simplistic. But to pretend that their intervention had no consequences would be equally misleading.

The GMB argues that a cap on donations could damage Labour’s ability to raise funds from affiliated organisations. That is institutional self-interest. But it should not be confused with the national interest. Britain needs political finance rules that reduce the influence of money and organised interests, whoever they are.
Marcus Hallside
Radlett, Hertfordshire

I am in favour of both empowering unions and capping donations. The objectives of union donors are widely different to those of the mega-rich donors. While the latter seek self-enrichment, the unions’ only aim is to enable a society where workers’ rights are upheld and a fair wage is earned, and to increase employment rates. This fits perfectly with the aims of the Labour party: to support everyday working people and provide for those who cannot work. So I say: cap at around £1m to enable unions to donate and to curb the excessive influence of the mega-rich.
Martin Knott
Edinburgh