Lets's see if we can differentiate the cases...Unite members, like members of most unions, have chosen to have a political fund, in order that their union can campaign on matters that the law deems (or may deem) to be 'political' in nature. Since the early 1980s unions have been obliged, by law, to have renew the mandate on the existence of political funds every ten years. All such ballots, which include members who do not pay to the fund, have confirmed the funds in place. Union members, then choose whether, in addition to their normal subscription, to pay a political levy into that fund: the levy for Unite members is 14p per week; the vast majority choose to pay it, and it is taken from the income of members after payment of tax. The elected leadership of the union then decides how to allocate the funds: this includes financial support - direct or in kind - for candidates (or potential candidates) who support the values and objectives of the union. The leadership makes public its donations, and it accounts for its decisions to the membership. Michael 'Lord' Ashcroft makes determinations, in conjunction with Tory HQ behind closed doors, on how to dole out money which originates from an income upon which he has not paid UK tax (despite an express undertaking that he would do so.)To present the cases as directly comparable is to debase the currency of the debate, although given the general public level of ignorance about unions and/or political funding, it's sadly not a surprise.By the way, Sanjiv, I suggest you have a spin round the Unite website and then say whether you really want Bassam to disassociate himself from EVERYTHING Unite are doing. It's a big world out there.I'm a GMB member, as it happens.
Steve Donnelly ● 6024d