There is no comparison between the trade unions and Michael Ashcroft

The bogus comparison between union donations and the Tory peer's millions.

In an attempt to divert attention away from the Ashcroft scandal, the Conservatives and their allies in the media are today attacking Labour's financial links with the trade union movement, most notably Unite.

It's no secret that Labour has become increasingly reliant on the trade unions for money as donations from rich commercial interests and individuals, who bankrolled the party throughout the Blair years, have dried up. I first reported on this back in January and predicted that Labour's financial dependence on the unions would become a campaign issue.

The brothers were responsible for 64 per cent (£9.8m) of all donations to the party last year, with Unite, Britain's biggest union, accounting for 25 per cent (£3.6m). By contrast, when Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, the unions accounted for less than a third of all donations.

It's never healthy for a party to become reliant on only a few sources of income, and I'd be surprised if any Labour figure argued otherwise.

But what is unreasonable is for the party's opponents to then suggest that Labour's reliance on the unions is a scandal comparable to that of Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Conservatives.

After reading Rachel Sylvester's column in today's Times, "In the red corner: Labour's answer to Ashcroft", you could be forgiven for assuming that Unite's political director, Charlie Whelan, alone controls his union's donations to Labour.

In fact, the donations are taken from Unite's political fund, to which 1,291,408 members contribute voluntarily. As Will Straw points out, this works out at just under £3 per member per year since March 2007.

There is no comparison to be had between this democratic funding system and the millions the Tories received from Ashcroft, a man who has sat in the legislature for nearly a decade without having the decency to become a full UK taxpayer. The scandal of either Ashcroft misleading the Tories, or the Tories misleading us, does not deserve to end with a whimper.

There are legitimate questions to be asked about Whelan's apparent return to the fold (not a wise move on Gordon Brown's part), but the bogus comparison between the unions and Ashcroft doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The UK must reflect on its own role in stoking tension over North Korea

World powers should follow the conciliatory approach of South Korea, not its tempestuous neighbour. 

South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in has done something which took enormous bravery. As US and North Korean leaders rattle their respective nuclear sabres at one another, Jae-in called for negotiations and a peaceful resolution, rejecting the kind of nationalist and populist response preferred by Trump and Kim Jong-un.

In making this call, Jae-in has chosen the path of most resistance. It is always much easier to call for one party in a conflict to do X or Y than to sit round a table and thrash through the issues at hand. So far the British response has sided largely with the former approach: Theresa May has called on China to clean up the mess while the foreign secretary Boris Johnson has slammed North Korea as “reckless”.

China undoubtedly has a crucial role to play in any solution to the North and South Korean conflict, and addressing the mounting tensions between Pyongyang and Washington but China cannot do it alone. And whilst North Korea’s actions throughout this crisis have indeed been reckless and hugely provocative, the fact that the US has flown nuclear capable bombers close to the North Korean border must also be condemned. We should also acknowledge and reflect on the UK’s own role in stoking the fires of tension: last year the British government sent four Typhoon fighter jets to take part in joint military exercises in the East and South China seas with Japan. On the scale of provocation, that has to rate pretty highly too.

Without being prepared to roll up our sleeves and get involved in complex multilateral negotiations there will never be an end to these international crises. No longer can the US, Britain, France, and Russia attempt to play world police, carving up nations and creating deals behind closed doors as they please. That might have worked in the Cold War era but it’s anachronistic and ineffective now. Any 21st century foreign policy has to take account of all the actors and interests involved.

Our first priority must be to defuse tension. I urge PM May to pledge that she will not send British armed forces to the region, a move that will only inflame relations. We also need to see her use her influence to press both Trump and Jong-un to stop throwing insults at one another across the Pacific Ocean, heightening tensions on both sides.

For this to happen they will both need to see that serious action - as opposed to just words - is being taken by the international community to reach a peaceful solution. Britain can play a major role in achieving this. As a member of the UN Security Council, it can use its position to push for the recommencing of the six party nuclear disarmament talks involving North and South Korea, the US, China, Russia, and Japan. We must also show moral and practical leadership by signing up to and working to enforce the new UN ban on nuclear weapons, ratified on 7 July this year and voted for by 122 nations, and that has to involve putting our own house in order by committing to the decommissioning of Trident whilst making plans now for a post-Trident defence policy. It’s impossible to argue for world peace sat on top of a pile of nuclear weapons. And we need to talk to activists in North and South Korea and the US who are trying to find a peaceful solution to the current conflict and work with them to achieve that goal.

Just as those who lived through the second half of the 20th century grew accustomed to the threat of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, so those of us living in the 21st know that a nuclear strike from the US, North Korea, Iran, or Russia can never be ruled out. If we want to move away from these cyclical crises we have to think and act differently. President Jae-in’s leadership needs to be now be followed by others in the international community. Failure to do so will leave us trapped, subject to repeating crises that leave us vulnerable to all-out nuclear war: a future that is possible and frightening in equal measure.

Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion.