Opinions
Programmes
Author
Joe Zammit-Lucia
Joe Zammit-Lucia is a RADIX Co-Founder and board member. He is an entrepreneur and commentator on business and political issues writing in outlets in the UK, US, Germany and the Netherlands. His particular interest is the relationship between business and politics.
Are trade unions the only pressure group who should be allowed to ‘buy our democracy?’
The debate around the possibility of setting caps around donations to political parties is gathering heat. When initially proposed, several trade unions argued against it on the grounds that it would constrain union donations to the Labour Party. They were right.
The debate has now shifted with some arguing that union donations, and only union donations, should get privileged treatment and be excluded from any such caps.
Supporters of this approach now argue that union donations represent ‘the cleanest money in politics’ (yes, seriously). That they represent the collective donations of NHS workers, care workers and the like. This is mere sophistry.
There is nothing to stop any care worker, NHS worker or anyone else for that matter making their donations directly to the Labour Party. The collection of small donations into a massive war chest administered by union bosses has one objective and one objective only – to make the collective amount of money involved large enough to give unions direct leverage over Labour Party policy. In other words, to allow unions to ‘buy our democracy’.
And Unions do that explicitly and unashamedly. They have no qualms about withdrawing, or publicly threatening to withdraw, funding from the Labour Party if its actions do not meet union approval. Does that not constitute ‘buying our democracy?’
Others may do the same but tend to be less brazen about it.
Trade unions are pressure groups doing their good work in the interests of their members. As such, they form an important part of our democratic structures. Yet, that they represent a minority of the UK’s workers (just 22% of workers are trade union members) does not give them any kind of moral superiority relative to any other pressure group or interest group. There is no justification for handing them influence privileges that are denied to others. Except, of course, Labour Party self-interest.
The discussion does not stop there. There is also talk of making any legislation retroactive with the sole purpose of negating recent substantial donations to Reform UK. If enacted, this combination of special privileges awarded to Labour Party supporters and retroactive legislation designed specifically to block a rival party would represent a degree of self-dealing by the Labour government that approaches Trumpian proportions.
No government should be allowed to survive such blatantly self-interested actions.
Political party funding is a difficult and complex issue for which there are no clean and tidy solutions. In the UK, the public complain about sleaze surrounding party funding yet oppose public funding. Not that the latter would be easy to design. Any system that ties public funding to the level of public support for individual parties (however that support may be measured) would favour incumbent parties and potentially stifle the emergence of rivals.
Despite some who seem to believe the contrary, there isn’t, and there will never be, any perfect system. Rather the question we should be debating is - which imperfections do we prefer? That we can debate for ever. But what should not be acceptable in any mature democracy is a set of rules that specifically and manifestly privileges some pressure groups and some interests over others. Or retroactive legislation specifically designed to undermine a rival political party – irrespective of whether we happen to like that party or not. The UK is not Russia.