
Labour is no longer the party of labour: the Rayner/Unite row proves it
But the message on Friday from Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, the successor to the TGWU, was intended as a shot across the bows of the Labour Party. First, and least significantly, it was suspending deputy prime minister Angela Rayner for 'bringing the union into disrepute', having had the audacity to support Labour-run Birmingham City Council in its seemingly never-ending dispute with bin men.
Of more consequence was the union's vote at its annual conference to 'discuss our relationship with Labour' – a discussion in the same fashion as when the Kray brothers would discuss their relationship with other gangland bosses. Destroy, in other words.
Severing the relationship between Labour and its union funders has been a perennial of politics for decades. Sometimes it's used as a threat, as now, by a union which feels it's not getting value for money from its creature. Other times, as in the heyday of New Labour, it comes from party thinkers as a demonstration of how Labour is no longer the creature of the unions.
Labour has itself changed its relationship with the unions, most importantly when it introduced One Member, One Vote (OMOV) in 1993 under John Smith, which removed the union block vote in leadership elections and candidate selections and then by Ed Miliband abolishing the old electoral college in 2014, handing the leadership to Jeremy Corbyn.
But while there has been no formal severing of the link between the unions and Labour, many individual unions have stopped affiliating to the party. Today there are just eleven which still affiliate: rail union ASLEF, general union Community, the Communication Workers Union, the Fire Brigades Union, general union the GMB, the Musicians Union, the National Union of Mineworkers, transport union TSSA, public sector union Unison, Unite and the shopworkers' union USDAW.
For decades Labour was effectively bought and paid for by the unions, which were the party's only significant source of funding. That led to the old tensions when the party didn't act as its paymasters demanded. Things are very different today, with consequently different tensions.
Labour's income in 2023 was £21.5 million, of which just £5.9 million came from unions. £14.5 million came from companies and individuals. That's a pattern. In 2020 and 2021 unions gave £6.9 million, in 2022 it was £5.3 million, while funding from businesses and individual donations have risen from £2.3 million in 2020 to £3 million in 2021, £7.6 million in 2022 and nearly £14 million in 2023.
Of that £14m, £10m was from four individuals, Gary Lubner (£4.6 million), David Sainsbury (£3.1 million), Fran Perrin (£1 million – Perrin is David Sainsbury's daughter) and eco-activist Dale Vince' Ecotricity (£1m). In other words, two people gave Labour more money than all trade unions combined.
This tells its own political story about how Labour is no longer the party of labour. The 2019 Conservative red wall success was built on this, just as the current support for Reform is in part based on voters who would once have seen Labour as their natural party.
But instead of funding the party, unions have moved to individual MPs.
In 2023 212 Labour MPs and received more than £2m in donations and support. And of those unions, Unite provided by far the most money, totalling £553,900 given to 86 MPs. So Labour MPs still need their union funding – as does the party itself. It may now be a fraction of the levels of old, but £5.9 million is a huge sum the party will not have if unions take their money elsewhere.
Sharon Graham may not be Frank Cousins, but she has her own cards to play.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Shoddy that Donald Trump can't address MPs, says Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage has said it is "shoddy" that Donald Trump will not have the chance to address Parliament during his unprecedented second state comes after it was announced the US president will begin a three-day trip on 17 September, a day after the House of Commons breaks for the traditional party conference Reform UK leader said the "cowardly" timing of the trip showed the Labour government's "real priority" was to favour relations with Street denied the trip had deliberately been scheduled for the recess, saying questions on timing were for Buckingham visits, however, are traditionally organised in conjunction with government. Last week France's President Emmanuel Macron gave an address to both Houses of Parliament during his three-day state visit to the such speeches are not automatic. Only around one in four state visits since 1952 have included a formal address to Parliament. Trump did not address Parliament during his first state visit in April, Labour MP Kate Osborne reportedly wrote to Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle asking him to stop Trump from addressing Parliament.A parliamentary motion urging the same thing had also been signed by some MPs, mostly from Labour and including some to the BBC, Farage, a prominent British supporter of the US president, acknowledged it would be controversial for Trump to address MPs and peers, as "anything to do with Donald Trump results in a row".But he said Trump was "more pro-British" than Macron, and the UK's alliance with the United States was key to trade and the Nato military a contrast with the "full ceremonial visit" offered to President Macron, he added: "This just tells you what this government's real priorities are."It's European Union above everything else, including America - who of course are not only our most important ally, but without whom we are defenceless. So I think the whole thing is shoddy". The government is not planning to change the parliamentary schedule to allow Trump to speak to MPs and Keir Starmer's official spokesperson told reporters: "Questions on the timings and dates are for the Palace. They've obviously agreed dates with the President"."I would firmly steer you away from the idea the timings of a visit are anything to do with Parliament recess dates," he Downing Street has confirmed Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will meet Trump when the US president visits his golf resort at Menie in Aberdeenshire later this 10 said Sir Keir had accepted an invitation to meet during the "private" trip to Scotland. State visits Invitations for state visits are formally issued by the monarch, but on the advice of government - normally organised through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). Dates are set jointly by the government, the Palace and visiting House of Lords will still be sitting during Trump's visit, but under long-standing parliamentary rules, a joint address to both houses can only take place when both are in session. The final decision rests with the Speakers of the Commons and Lords, though in reality any speeches are agreed with the government of the day. The Royal Family confirmed that Trump's visit will be based at Windsor Castle, with Buckingham Palace unavailable due to ongoing refurbishment. The ceremonial elements of the visit, including a state banquet and Guard of Honour, are expected to go ahead as planned. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.


The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
A review finds a BBC Gaza documentary breached editorial guidelines
A BBC documentary about children's lives in Gaza breached editorial guidelines on accuracy because it failed to disclose that the program was narrated by the son of a Hamas official, according to a report published Monday. The broadcaster removed the program, 'Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone,' from its streaming service in February after it emerged that the 13-year-old narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture. A review found that the independent production company that made the program did not share the background information regarding the narrator's father with the BBC. It said that the production company, Hoyo Films, bears most responsibility for the failure, though it did not 'intentionally' mislead the BBC. The review, conducted by the corporation's director of editorial complaints and reviews, found no other breaches of editorial guidelines, including impartiality. There was no evidence of 'outside interests' impacting on the program, it said. Earlier this year, Britain's Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy questioned why no one at the BBC had lost their job over the program's airing. The broadcaster's Director-General Tim Davie had told lawmakers that the BBC received hundreds of complaints alleging that the documentary was biased against Israel, as well as hundreds more criticizing the program's removal from its streaming service. Davie said Monday that the report identified 'a significant failing' in relation to accuracy in the documentary. Hoyo Films apologized for the mistake. Both firms said they would prevent similar errors in the future. Separately, more than 100 BBC journalists wrote a letter to Davie earlier this month criticizing its decision not to air another documentary, 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire." They expressed concerns that the broadcaster was not reporting ''without fear or favour' when it comes to Israel." The decision suggested that the BBC was an 'organization that is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government,' that letter said. The BBC has been under intense scrutiny for its coverage touching on the war in Gaza. Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and others condemned the corporation for livestreaming a performance by rap punk duo Bob Vylan, who led crowds at Glastonbury Festival in chanting 'death' to the Israeli military. The 21-month Israel-Hamas war started after the militant group attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage. Most of the hostages have been released in earlier ceasefires. Israel's offensive in Gaza has killed more than 58,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. The ministry, under Gaza's Hamas-run government, doesn't differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count. The U.N. and other international organizations see its figures as the most reliable statistics on war casualties. ___


Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
BBC's Gaza documentary breached accuracy guideline, review finds
LONDON, July 14 (Reuters) - A BBC documentary about children's lives in Gaza narrated by the 13-year-old son of a Hamas official breached its editorial guidelines on accuracy, an internal review by the British public broadcaster said on Monday. The investigation, however, found there were no other breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines, including on impartiality, and no evidence that outside interests "inappropriately impacted on the programme". The BBC removed "Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone" from its online platform in February, five days after it was broadcast, saying it had "serious flaws". The documentary was made by independent production company HOYO Films. A review found the programme breached a guideline on accuracy that deals with misleading audiences. The background on the narrator's father — a minister in the Hamas-run government in Gaza — was "critical information", which was not shared with the BBC before broadcast, the review found. Gaza's health ministry says more than 58,000 people have been killed since the start of the war on Oct. 7 2023, when Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages into Gaza. The BBC's coverage of the war has been heavily scrutinised throughout the conflict, with both supporters of Israel and its critics saying the broadcaster had failed to strike the right balance. "Regardless of how the significance or otherwise of the Narrator's father's position was judged, the audience should have been informed about this," said the report by Peter Johnston, BBC Director of Editorial Complaints and Reviews. BBC Director-General Tim Davie said the report identified a significant failing in relation to accuracy. "We will now take action on two fronts – fair, clear and appropriate actions to ensure proper accountability and the immediate implementation of steps to prevent such errors being repeated," Davie said in a statement.