One good reason for not funding these so called socialists:
"First, the Government can veto pay and conditions agreements between the rail unions and private train operating companies. Secondly, the Government can waive penalty payments incurred by private train operating companies involved in industrial disputes. Thirdly, the Government can provide compensation—this is staggering, and I do not know of any other example in any other industry, public or privatised—to private train operating companies that have lost revenue through involvement in industrial disputes. In other words, on top of the billions of pounds of subsidy and profit already paid to private train operators, it is now Government policy to bankroll private train operating companies in their disputes with the rail unions. That is subsidising a subsidy. It is subsidising industrial relations failure on behalf of employers".
Now read the rest. The Unions are wasting ordinary people’s hard earned graft on these fraudulent expenses thieves.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/v...

It is odd that on the one hand Unions are organising the "March for an Alternative" on March 26th, a march in favour of a program fundamentally at odds with the current policy of both Labour and Tories, and yet on the other these numbers would indicate unions should have a significant amount of leverage over Labours policy - and yet Labours policy (one of savage cuts) seems at odds with what unions are promoting on the ground.

When will these unions pull their finger out and start supporting politics that actually favour their members instead of bankrolling a neo-liberal party? Every penny the unions invest in labour is wasted. This is a part that didn't roll back the anti-union laws, a party that wants cuts, and a party intent on privatising much of our public services

From the same debate:
(28th February 2006: Column 30wh)
I shall give some examples. Richard Branson of Virgin Trains and Brian Souter of Stagecoach can expect payouts from a Labour Government whenever they take on a rail union. That is beyond belief. Not only is it obviously wrong, it is an unprecedented and dangerous departure from existing policy on private sector industrial relations. It could have widespread implications beyond the confines of the railway industry. Where will the Government next intervene to prop up multi-million-pound private companies in their battles against the unions?

What about the cost of that ill-conceived policy? In answer to a parliamentary question on 14 March 2005, I was told that the Strategic Rail Authority has paid a staggering £23 million to compensate private operating companies for revenue losses during strike action between March 2003 and November 2004. That £23 million could have provided investment in the rail service.

Apologies for the spelling errors there.

@Ross

I agree with you about the Labour Party. But what alternative does the Trade Union movement have? It will be very difficult to institutionalise any gains made by the Trade Union movement unless they have some kind of political representation at the top - even if it is unsatisfactory. Would the NHS or minimum wage have happened without a Labour party? I think it would be bad strategy for the trade unions to give up on Labour. Instead they should (among other activities) try to support those voices in the Labour Party who really are non-neoliberals. Maybe.

Marcus

'It is fundamentally wrong for Unions to collect money from members and then distribute to any political party'.

The Unions hold a vote on party donations to political funds.

Each member has a choice on whether they wish to join a union or not knowing that some of their membership fees go towards political funding.

A Union member can ask to stop contributing to any political funds that may be taken from their membership, they are free to contract out at any time even if they voted for the political funding in the first place.

Each union member funding a political fund is paying far less than a thousand per annum.

It's actually all very democratic and no one is really forced into this situation at all.

Give me a union funded party anyday, they represent the people whereas a hedgefund funded party represents a select few.

@bob

I agree that the union movements need political representation. It's just that I think it needs strong, coherent, political representation that works in favour of working people and doesn't have cosy links with the city and all manner of horrid people (as a quick example, Mandelson buddying up with Said Gaddafi)

The Labour Party had it's day. But lets not keep flogging a dead horse. Blair dropped Clause IV. It has morphed from a reformist socialist party in to a neo-liberal party; more concerned with its respectability in the city of london than it what it can do for working people.

There remains lots of good people in Labour. But you only have to look at the situation right now to see just how bankrupt it is: you have Labour councillors pushing through cuts, many of them without a squeak. They aren't offering resistance. That's not a workers party.

The Unions need to pull away from Labour and form a new workers party. A workers party that isn't afraid of pissing off the city, of speaking on behalf of working people and of having a Clause IV-esque constitution (i.e. socialist). They are just wasting money and deluding themselves with Labour. It's a lost cause. The Unions built Labour once, they can rebuild a new party now.

The odd relationship with the Unions and the Party will have to be sorted out one of these days. Unions have to understand that they cannot run the Labour Party but can support it to achieve their ends. Either that or form their own Workers Party and put up their own candidates for MPs for Election. They could also run their own Schools and Academies and Libraries rather like they did in the olden days of Mechanics Institutes and the like.

The argument about union members not being obliged to make political contributions is disingenuous. Why not make the contribution dependent on members opting in? This would be a better reflection of the how many of them were really willing to put their hands into their pockets for the Labour Party. It would also remove much of the stigma attached to union funding.

And while they are at it, it might be a good idea to reform the way the unions go about organizing their part of the vote for the Labour leadership so the result looks a little less like a stitch-up.

"neil Kinnock's salary? Prescott's two jags- are Labour really credible as a voice for working people?"

What business of yours is it how many Jags he has? Did he steal them from you? What kind of real leadership do you think you can attract with crap salaries? Did you ever see Scargil's mansion? It would have done a multi millionaire proud. Did that make him a lousy Communist or a poor union leader?

Hi Buckskins, how are you? Since we all paid for Prescott's jags and for Kinnock's salary, I think it's the business of all of us. And neither has done much other than suck on the state's udders-no leadership there.
Scargill? Lousy communist, poor union leader, egomaniac.

@swatantra

"Either that or form their own Workers Party and put up their own candidates for MPs for Election."

LOL, that is why they set up the Labour Party!!!

@thinkov.
Entirely agree!
The Tories try to demonise the Unions and public sector workers, but the truth is, the Unions are about sticking up for ordinary working people and if this is what Labour believe in, then it is in the Union's interest to support them, it makes sense.
You know where the Tories priorities lie, when you look at the source of their donations. Banks and big business. Ordinary folk, way down the list.

It is indeed a great worry to activists the overdependence of Labour funding on one source, and it has been a huge change since the late 90s. See my article of 20 Feb at Left Foot Forward here.

How much is this man paid? union leaders on bosses wages. What the f@@k does this idiot know or care about workers earning £15.000 and less..

If the Labour does not grasp that a radical alternative is what's required. Then they will loose the next election. The electorate did not want New Labour the kicked them out!! Labour must stop trying to justify policies that the electorate rejected. They were wrong about going to war wrong about the worship of the free market wrong about the banks and wrong about privatisation. Wrong wrong wrong!! Just admit this and move on. Mr posh and Mr Pledge are firmly camped on that New Labour ground. I know it's hard living in that Westminster bubble but us ordinary folks want a real alternative. Move on Mr Miliband move on.

'Private donations have all but collapsed since Ed Miliband became leader, with just £39,286 raised from individual donations to CLPs.'

Whilst this is true, it seems that you insinuate a positive correlation between the two. Might it not have something to do with people feeling the tightening of belts in these times of austerity too?