Once again the Tories are seeking to pull out Labour’s relationship with trade unions as an election issue; because what relationship it maintains with unions should not be its own choice, but that of its biggest political rival. Naturally.
It is a convenient distraction indeed from the rather more murky issues going on in their own back yard.
Hugh Muir has already written about this at some length, and I find it difficult to disagree with a single thing he says.There is no equivalence in the first place between individual political fund donations from ordinary people, and tax dodging chains of companies with the obvious purpose of avoiding laws on foreign influence on British elections. Muir is also right about a whole host of other things, which I shall not go further into here.
The Tories seem to be saying that the hundred years of legal political representation afforded by their choice to begin a political party is somehow comparable to their recent buy out on the part of someone who refuses to contribute tax to this country, despite their fundamentally questionable standards of honesty over the whole thing, leaving the plebs to pick up the tab.
The union link can be subjected to public debate all day, but the fact remains that union political funds are open and subject to scrutiny. Above board. They always have been.
Can the Tories say the same of the man they are trying to get out of the public consciousness? They will talk about Unite at their convenience. But when will they answer the key questions?
-Why all the obfuscation around Bearwood Corporate Services?
-When did William Hague and David Cameron become aware of Lord Ashcroft’s tax status? Have they been honest about this?
-Why did they not inform the public or make the nature of these donations apparent?
-Why did Lord Ashcroft tell us ten years ago that he would pay UK tax, before proceeding to land his chunk of the burden on other taxpayers?
-Why did invitees from the Conservative Party refuse to assist the Electoral Commission with its investigations into Lord Ashcroft?
Still no answers from them, predictably. Let’s talk about Unite!
There is also a question for the press and other media to consider.
Why are you spending so much time covering publicly declared donations, under a long established system subject to long political acceptance, consented to by union members… without first finishing up the as yet completely unanswered questions above?
Would reporting that Labour and the unions come out much cleaner get in the way of your election plans? Or have you just allowed yourselves to be bumped?
Update: Iain Dale thinks Labour should change its name. To ‘Labour’, presumably?
Pingback: How ‘Cash Gordon’ will work in practice « Tribune – news, features and comment from Britain's left-wing magazine
Pingback: Tribune – news, features and comment from Britain's left-wing magazine