Trade Unionists fleeced?

It is a Labour myth that Lord Ashworth is unfairly giving money to selected constituencies, in a period between elections when there is at present no cap on individual giving or expenditure on campaigning. They have accused Lord Ashcroft of “creating an arms race”.

In an important article on November 5^th, 2007, the Times showed that this is a considerable stretching of the truth. It showed that the Trade unions collectively gave £1.58m to local constituencies, during the last parliament, while Lord Ashcroft gave £850,000 to Tory seats. Even if donations from other wealthy Conservatives are included, the total rises to £1.38m, - still slightly short of the Trade Union level of giving.

It is true that the Unions give to a wider range of constituencies, - not just to marginal ones. But they have given to marginal seats. Derby North, number 15 in the Tory target list, received £25,500 in 20 donations from the Communication Workers’ Union, compared to £5,000 from Lord Ashcroft to his party there. In Hastings and Rye the Unions donated £16,465 compared to Lord Ashcroft’s donation of £12,068. Since the 2005 election Unions have donated £64,018 to labour seats, while Lord Ashcroft has given £72,970 to Tory target seats.

But, say Labour, we are not comparing like with like, - Trade Union gifts are from 8 million individual members, while Lord Ashcroft’s are from a single individual The former should be allowed to give up to £50,000 per member, while Lord Ashcroft should be restricted to £50,000.

Collectively the Trade Union gifts from member subscriptions amount to about £10 million each year. Matthew Parris (Times, 8^th December, 2007) estimates that £85 million has been given in the last 6 years altogether by the Trade Unions.

The Labour argument must be set against other facts. Firstly, in regular opinion polls, slightly less than 50% admit to being Labour voters, the remainder vote for other parties, or none. Secondly, set this against the fact that many unions claim that considerably more than 50% have agreed to pay affiliation fees to Labour. In fact Usdaw and Nacods claim 100%, while CWU claim 104% and Amicus even 109%. Why do they claim more members than they have? Simple, it costs them £4 a year for every member who affiliates, and they receive votes in proportion to their membership. Some unions are prepared to dip into their pockets for the extra influence they receive.

On many of the union websites, while affiliation may be mentioned, nowhere does it appear to say that members can opt out, and on many the suggestion is that opting out does not reduce subscriptions. It seems that there is a strong possibility that there are thousands, even millions, who would opt out to save themselves money or donate it to other parties if it was possible.

Matthew Parris suggests that the union practices are already illegal under various laws – 1987 Consumer Protection Act, 1999 Consumer Contracts Regulations and the 2000 Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations. They will almost certainly be illegal under EU legislation due to arrive in 2008 – it will be illegal to induce anyone to enter a contract by “omitting or hiding material information, or providing it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner”.

We may be reaching the point where the Conservatives should accept Gordon Brown’s invitation to talk again about the whole question of donations, but insist that the Trade Union donations must be included. Brown can hardly rule them out, without losing face.

If Brown goes ahead without the Conservatives, as he threatens, and legislates in a partisan way, there will be the possibility of legal disputation and a testing of the laws above. It needs only a few sympathetic trade union members to support the Conservative cause by swearing that they were never informed of their rights to opt out, or to make gifts in other directions, and there would have to be a major investigation. In the end much of the Union giving would be lost. It would be a pyrrhic victory for Brown.