David Cameron clearly thinks that if he shouts loud enough about Labour, no one will ask him about his own policies for the poorest in Britain. It’s pretty amazing stuff from a man who wants to give £200,000 to those set to inherit millions while cutting tax credits and child trusts funds of ordinary families.
And now David Cameron’s attacks on Labour have been taken apart by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, stating that "direct tax and benefit changes made by the previous Conservative governments acted to increase income inequality, whereas those made by since 1997-98 have benefited the poor by more than the rich".
There can be no pretence, the Labour Party may not reflect UNISON Policies anywhere near as much as our Members deserve, but when faced with the reality of the Tory Party of the rich being in power it will be our Members who lose, public services which suffer and our Pensions that are attacked.
It is right and proper that we review our use of the political fund and seek to either withdraw permanently from Labour Link or ensure better value for money and greater influence.
This needs to be on the basis of an honest appraisal of how much is actually spent and not on the unhelpful exaggerated claims of a minority who see Labour bashing as a sport!
Whilst the Labour Link may be unpopular with a small minority, it is transparent and offers real political choice. I do not believe it is only about keeping the Tories out of public office, but it is also about seeking to shape a Labour Party in which our priorities become theirs.
At a time when Labour is likely to start reaching out for allies, UNISON is in a very strong position to capitalise on this making demands like never before. The political fund can produce national and local influence and its successes should be more broadly advertised.
The trade union's relationship with the Labour group in my own Council had, without doubt collapsed 5 years ago. Both 'sides' have had to work hard to move on and work together to avoid such as service cuts and compulsory redundancies, but this has quantifiably resulted in services and posts being saved.
Whilst we do not agree on everything, typically there is more that unites us than the opposite. Locally we now have influence, occupy seats on various Labour Party Committees, are 'allowed' to speak at Cabinet and Council meetings and have 'green paper' confidential reports(from which Press and Public are excluded) shared with us.
On a micro level there have been real positive local changes and I believe there can be a similar macro impact at a Regional and National Level. We need to have closer working relationships with our local politicians, making them accountable.
Without being overly dramatic, we have a simple choice - to support a party of inequality and privilege, or a party that is far from ideal, but one that we can seek to influence to protect our jobs and public services. I do not want to wake up to the nightmare of a Tory Party at the next election and rue that we did not analyse better ways of utilising the political fund and the Labour Link.
Like many of our members, I remember the previous Tory nightmare!
Glen Williams
Click here for more Political Fund views
