Writing in yesterday’s Sunday Times (£), Nick Clegg says:
Politics in this country was left in the gutter by the expenses scandal of the last parliament. Even with this government’s ambitious programme of political reform, it will take a long time for us to climb out. Unless we reform our discredited and distrusted system of party funding, we may never restore that public confidence and trust that is the lifeblood of our democracy.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Thelma Davies
David Raw
Nigel Jones
Ruth Clark
42 Comments
Hear, hear Mr Clegg. And the solution is simple. Take the question by the balls, and just announce that you’re going to legislate a £50,000 a year donation limit, to apply equally to all trade unions, companies, rich individuals, charities and everyone else.
Lib Dems and Tories will back it and if Labour refuses the government should not be ashamed to shout from the roof tops that they are defending the right of big money to corrupt politics. Force the issue and let the public decide who is in the right. You will wait until judgement day for Labour to give up its union money, and there exists a brief window when the Tories can be shamed into supporting it that will soon close.
ACT NOW!!!
Due to recent changes in legislation governing party funding, I have found myself closing down with ministers still un-bought! If YOU want a cabinet minister fighting your corner in government, act fast to grab one of my last-minute Minister deals! For just £11,000, you can own your very own Andrew Mitchell MP! For just £9,700, you can have Cheryl Gillan MP fighting your corner on sheep farming subsidies! And my offer is not just limited to cabinet ministers!
Maria Eagle MP, only £8,900! Emily Thornberry MP, £7,000! Buy Margerete Curran MP, get Vernon Croaker MP absolutely FREE! All ministers must go in my MP-In-Your-Pocket closing down SALE!
ACT NOW!!!
I predict that nothing will change. 🙁
If you want to get rid of big individual donations it would be easy to get Labour on board. Simply tell the truth about union contributions. Trade union contributions are collected from individuals who do not opt out of the political levy. They are in this way no different from contributions collected from branches of political parties. If all party subscriptions for the Liberal Democrats were added together and then handed to the party treasurer as a lump sum, then treated as an individual contribution, you would have a fair comparator for union contributions to the Labour Party. As it is the smokescreen of union contributions is being employed to stop the huge individual contributions that fund and influence the Conservative Party coming under scrutiny.
I’m afraid though there are still to many about who think such ridiculous things as that the Tories would readily accept a £50,000 cap. If that were true they would have done so without the absurd claim that being a collection agent for a £3 political levy equals £250,000 for dinner with the Camerons.
Those who are defending the right of big money to corrupt politics are those who would use it as a tool to deny the right of a working individual to join a trade union affiliated to a political party. Those who are defending the right of big money to corrupt politics are those who claim that it is undemocratic to form an organisation of individuals who freely fund a common cause. Those who are defending the right of big money to corrupt politics are those who wish to put obstacles in the way of such personal freedom to organise in order to deny the common cause of these individuals adequate representation. These are the people who wish to maintain that it is only the individual acting alone who should have right to political representation and that there is only one approved way in which to organise politically i.e. the party system. Once individuals gather together in order to balance their relative weakness against the individual with a disposable £50,000 they become undemocratic and can be conceptually replaced with a removal of their autonomy and respect for their individually expressed will and henceforth treated as if they are no more than a constituent part of the individual they nominate to speak on their behalf. Their interests become his/her interests, their influence becomes his/her influence, their contributions become his/her bung and the influence of the wealthy individual becomes more worthy than than of the collectively organised. My £3 becomes a symbol of corruption and your £50,000 of democratic freedom.
Thanks JRC. You’ve saved me the trouble of making exactly the same point about union contributions.
It’s no surprise that Tories are trying to claim some equivalence between union donations and donations from companies and wealthy individuals. There was a time when I would have expected better from the Lib Dems but now I’m not so sure.
Excellently put, JRC.
My personal contribution to the Unison “Labour Link” fund is the princely sum of £17.55 per annum – which is actually the highest standard amount anybody pays (I’m at the top of their membership fee scale). An average member on the middle band pays just £7.56 per annum. Many pay far less. All the money “the unions” give to Labour is in fact summed up from these kinds of tiny, voluntary contributions from millions of people like myself.
It’s precisely the kind of grass-roots political micro-funding system one might expect the Lib Dems to actually be in favour of if they genuinely abhor the influence of “big money”, so why all the antipathy?
Trade union contrbutions are different because the union decides where the contributions of individual members are to go. If the donations were made individually, they might go to different places.
@Richard Dean
Are you seriously suggesting that union members paying the political levy don’t know that the money goes to the Labour Party?
No, but do unions give their members the option of contributing, through the Union, to different parties? The service that a Union provides, in favour of the political party that it supports, makes support through unions different.
If there are three stalls in a market, and JRC decides to put £3 in one of them, that is a free choice. But the union gives JRC a different choice – either this one stall or none at all. That’s diferent. It doesn’t make it a corrupt £3. But it makes it a different one to the £3 given when there are three stalls to choose from.
OK Richard that’s a fair point. However, I hope you would accept that limiting union donations to £50,000 would be wrong..
What JRC claimed was that union contributors were a fair comparator to contributions through donantions made to party offices. What I think we have agreed is that that is not the case. I believe our agreement was on the basis of the nature of the choices available.
But there is another way in which it is not a fair comparator. A individual giving a small amount through a party office is not named, and so is not expecting a direct link between the donation and the individual’s desires. But for wealthy individuals giving direct to head offices, the claim of “corruption” is essentially that the individual is identifiable and may be expecting a benefit. Except for trivial cases like knighthoods, the benefit would generally be in terms of a particular policy or policies being chosen. This seems to be comparable to a union giving directly to a party. The union is also identifiable, and is expecting a benefit which will be more or less direct, and which may also be in terms of a particular policy or policies.
So the case is not so easy to decide!
But it’s easier to spot a policy which is broadly favourable to trades unions than one which is favourable to an individual about whom we may know very little apart from the fact that they have a lot os spare cash.
I’m not so sure, but anyway, wouldn’t that mean that we should insist simply on large donors being identified, rather than limiting the amounts that donors can give? A free press can always find out more.
Indeed they can but it’s still a good deal less overt than union contributions unless, of course, the donor just happens to get a knighthood soon after their donation. Even then it isn’t clear whether they got more than a knighthood (and, of course, a nice tax cut).
@Richard
My union (one of the biggest) calls its political fund “Labour Link” so there is not really much doubt about where the money goes! And members have a free choice to not pay the fund and instead give their money to other parties if they wish.
Your comparison between unions and wealthy individuals is wrong. Of course unions expect policy influence – members give money to a particular party because they expect that party to pursue policies in furtherance of their interests and rights. It is an open and transparent arrangement, always has been, and there is nothing corrupt about it. I realise this will be a sore point for Lib Dems at the moment, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a party enacting policies that its supporters wish it to.
The problem with super-rich donors is that their influence over policy is in danger of being grossly out of proportion to their numbers, by virtue of their wealth. This is where your comparison with union donations falls down. If a million people exert influence on a party, that’s a healthy democratic mass movement. If a dozen or so tycoons do the same, that’s plutocracy.
But actually a million people don’t influence the party like that. The union executive does, which is a pretty small number of people with influence.
No Richard, The union executive would have no influence whatsoever (and no money either) if it didn’t have all those people behind it. I’d stop paying the levy tomorrow if I felt that my interests were not being represented.
Stuart, You’ve never disagreed with your union? Wow! Is everyone like that?
Richard, I disagree with them frequently, but that’s OK, it’s allowed. I don’t think many people would ever accuse the trades union and labour movement of always being in agreement.
Which presumably means they take decisions that you wouldn’t in their position? I suspect I have made my point,
Anyway, from a purely practical point of view, I can’t see an electorate that would accept a 50k limit on individual donations without limits on union donations too. Not in the near future. And individual limits are so easy to get around.
Richard, the fact that I as an individual do not agree 100% of the time with my union executive does not mean they are unrepresentative of their membership. That really isn’t the point. I’d be pretty astonished if they even all agreed with each other 100% of the time – that would be the stuff of science fiction.
It means that the influence they apply to political donees is not necessarily agreed by all of the individual donors. Which makes union donations different.
Unions are organisations like any other. They should be hit by exactly the same cap. You may as well say that when you buy something from Tesco you know they are going donate some money to the Tory party. That’s not the point.
And if all union members know that their money is going to go Labour, why not just accept an opt-in process? Why not remove all hint of doubt?
The only possible reason is because you KNOW that is not true. You know that given the chance many union members would not choose to send their money to Labour and as such the money available will go down. It is an utterly cynical attempt to stop Labour being restricted by the same rules as every other political party.
I’m not even vaguely surprised. Just like Labour seem to think it is their right to benefit from pocket boroughs up and down the country meaning they can get a majority government on 35% of the vote, but no other party would be able to do so. Labour’s sense of entitlement is breathtaking. But from the party that gave us Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Balls I’m not even slightly surprised.
I can only say this. SOCK IT TO THEM MR CLEGG. If you do you will have the majority of the country behind you (for once).
Richard Dean,
Your points depend on treating a trade union as an individual autonomous being. This is the fallacy that is employed by those who wish to defend the big individual donations given to their parties in return for direct influence. Your belief that there will not be £50k limits without restrictions on union donations is probably true which is why the whole debate is an obvious smokescreen, one which I’m afraid you are being duped by. Given that a trade union is a collection of individuals giving a small donation that is only collected by the union it is unlikely that it would be legal to restrict the process to less than the total donation pot. So by pretending that the political levy is one donation being given by one individual, support has been roused for asking for an illiberal and probably impossible condition to stopping the genuinely corrosive activity of large individual donations given to buy direct influence. Don’t forget, the only policies and powers that trades unions are ever accused of trying influence are those that would give them greater strength to defend the interests of their members.
Stephen W,
Labour is presently restricted by exactly the same rules as all other parties. Unions are free to support any or no party. Other parties are free to start their own trades union. If the Labour party or any other party wishes to allow affiliate membership through unions or any other organisation that is entirely up to them. It is utterly illiberal that a trade union cannot make a contribution to a political party a condition of membership. There should only be an opt in or out if the organisation chooses to have one. Trade union membership is entirely voluntary and a trade union is not a public body they are private collectives of individuals with a common interest. It is also entirely illiberal for the state to dictate how the internal democracy of an opposition party should be organised. If a party wishes to have affiliate members and give them voting rights that is entirely their own business. As affiliated members of the labour party there is no difference whatsoever between trade union representatives seeking to influence policy on behalf of their members and the Liberal Democrat conference delegates representing their local groups and seeking to change policy whilst the party is in power. What is very different though is to allow the political field to be solely in the possession of the representatives of the wealthy. What is also very different is to offer direct influence in government policy for a given fee.
Mark Serwotka and Len McCluskey are no Bernie Ecclestone.
Right. So if Bernie Ecclestone “affiliates” to the Conservative party then he can give whatever money he wants?
This is vacuous special pleading. Sure, a trade union is an organisation of individuals, so is a charity, a company, or any other group, a rich person is also an individual. If you support a cap on donations you support a cap on all of them, you don’t exclude one just because it’s convenient to the Labour party.
“Given that a trade union is a collection of individuals giving a small donation that is only collected by the union”
Fine. Then get each person’s opt-in to do that. If they’re all happy with that then they’ll all be happy to opt-in. It’s just a formality. If it will make everyone happy why are you resisting it so hard?
“Mark Serwotka and Len McCluskey are no Bernie Ecclestone”
I’m sorry but as far as I, and most of the rest of the public, are concerned they are exactly the same. Both fat cats trying to buy and sell our democracy and our politics and dictate to our democratically elected government.
I repeat myself. If the Unions have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. Stop resisting democracy. If they truly speak for all their members accept the opt-in and do it within rules that everyone can agree to.
If not then you are deliberately blocking finance reform and you should be condemned as such.
Stephen W wrote: “Hear, hear Mr Clegg. And the solution is simple. Take the question by the balls, and just announce that you’re going to legislate a £50,000 a year donation limit, to apply equally to all trade unions, companies, rich individuals, charities and everyone else.”
The problem with this idea is that the Tories have lots of rich supporters who will be able to stump up £50,000 each. Labour and the LibDems are not in that position. Your proposal would strengthen the financial (and electoral) dominance of the Conservatives even more. You are tipping the balance in the Tories’ favour and claiming it is more “fair”.
Stephen W
Why the union-hating?
Some of the arguments about them have been better made above and surely you can’t disagree that this way of collecting money is fundamentally different from a single person donation or a donation from a company (how much shareholder involvement is there for those?)
Any cap on idividual donations that equally applies to the Trade Unions and companies would give far more influence to single people who have to answer to noone but themselves. Any cap would also be easily circumvented I imagine by giving donation through companies, family etc, so your attack is focused on only one party – Labour who have never hidden their links to the unions and the involvement in their internal democracy
If you do not agree with the involvement of the unions on the Labour Party then do not vote for them. These links are clear and not hidden. If you want to change the internal consititution of another party then join and do that from inside.
I am not a member of the LD and so I never make any comment on the internal workings of your democracy, or those of your party. What I do want to know though is where your money is coming from and if it is likely to influence your policy.
A cap that sets individual donations at the same level as those for companies and unions is illiberal and will only help parties that favour the rich (perhaps the LD include themselves in that now). Reform of the rules and transparency would achieve the same ends. Also, punishments for those who transgress should be tough as it would be akin to corruption of those in office – the Cruddas affair (like others before) will be swept under the carpet
Stephen W,
You are correct. The problem is that you and a large part of the electorate do believe those three to be the same. The fact is though, that in believing them to be the same you are wrong.
There may be a case for a state imposed opt-in rather than an opt-out but only if it were the case that membership of a trade union were compulsory, but it isn’t. It is no business of the state to dictate the membership arrangements of an organisation such as a trade union. It is entirely illiberal for the state to dictate that a trade union should be proscribed from collecting subscriptions for whatever cause it chooses. If you wish to set up a trade union that has as part of its membership criterion that a part of the subscription for membership will be given to the Liberal Democrats and in return that I, as a member of your union, would become an affiliate member of that party, then no state should be able to stop you. The fact is that many unions, such as the PCS of which Mark Serwotka is head, are unaffiliated.
If Mr. Ecclestone wishes to join the Conservative party and exercise whatever rights within that party they choose to give him, then that is entirely up to him and them. However, as a past Labour Party donor his £1million donation should not have given him more influence than 1/3 million £3 donations of trade union members with their individual affiliate membership of the Labour party. When a trade union is affiliated to the Labour Party its members become affiliated members of the Labour Party. The leader of that union then acts in the same way as the delegate of a local party branch and campaigns on their behalf within the party.
As for having anything to hide, what is it that you believe to be hidden? The relationship of the trade unions to Labour is an open book. I will also repeat myself, it is none of the states business whether a trade union runs itself in a democratic or other way. Likewise it is none of the states business whether the internal mechanisms of a political party are democratic. There is no less democratic process than the method by which the Conservative Party develops policy. Their rank and file members have absolutely no direct input into policy. It would be entirely illiberal for the state to legislate against their constitution. As it is though, trade unions are open, democratic and it would probably be in many of their interests to have an opt-in rather than an opt-out.
I personally believe that the cap on individual donations should be far lower than £50,000. Even the £10,000 cap that has been suggested seems a bit high to me. What I am trying to explain to you is that there is no way in which the money that comes to the Labour Party through the political levy can be described legitimately as a single donation by one individual. The idea of a cap being applied to a trade union as if it is an individual is to deny the right of free association that every liberal should be defending. It would be an infringement of liberty to impose such a cap and would probably not be easily done without changing the legal status of all groups collecting political funds. I am no lawyer but I suspect that ultimately, such a cap would prove to be illegal. To claim it as a block to reform of individual party donations is therefore mistaken at best. Each member of the union that is paying the political levy is making an individual contribution. Stuart Mitchell, above, told us that he pays £17.55 per annum through his trade union levy to the Labour Party. You are arguing that if so many of his co-members do the same that their contributions add up to more than £50,000 then… what? Should the union just keep his money? Should they give it back to him and say “sorry you’ll have to post this in yourself”? Should his party subs be redistributed amongst other parties?
If you genuinely want to stop the buying of influence through individual donations then those donations must be capped. The solution to that is to put a cap on them. There is nothing stopping this happening. It could be done tomorrow. The status of trade union contributions could then be tested against the law on individual contributions. As I have argued in a roundabout way above, under such circumstances a law capping individual contributions would not be found to apply to union contributions so those who benefit from big donations have muddied the waters by plopping the big red herring of union funding into the mix.
I would propose something like the German [i]Kirchensteuer[/i]. Collect a small contribution via PAYE – say £1 per month – but only if the individual assents to this and indicates its recipient.
No one is suggesting stopping Unions donating as much money as they wish to whomever they wish. All they have to do is put in place at opt-in procedure rather than an opt-out procedure. That’s all they have to do and they can donated as much money as they like.
I repeat, if you’re convinced that all trade union members know they are donating to the Labour party, then why not accept and opt-in procedure, in the sure and certain knowledge that will just opt-in and continue voting the same?
It would take away the tories’ major weapon in bashing the unions and the Labour party, while considerably restricting their ability to raise funds from rich donors. If all union members are as happy to donate to the Labour party as you say, then it is a win, win for the unions and Labour. They’ll keep all their funding and hobble the Tories at the same time. Why not support it?
Please don’t write another long essay. Just answer that question.
There is another reason why applying the limit on individual donations to union donations would be wrong and illiberal. Let us assume that the limit is £50,000. For a union with 100,000 members paying the levy that is just 50p per member per year. A union may decide that the administrative costs of collecting this 50p is disproportionately high and so stop collecting any donation.
If members have to opt in then there would be an additional cost in trying to encourage members to pay. That may be an acceptable price to pay if donations are not affected by the cap. However, if the cap does apply, unions would be even more likely to end the political fund.
Stephen W
Why should there be an opt-in?
It is not compulsory to give to the political fund – there has to be an opt-out by law. Trade Unions are campaigning organisations and are there to represent their members. Have you any evidence that those contributing to the levy do not understand that it is being collected and going to the Labour Party (when it does so)?
You seem to focus on unions – why no proposition that companies have to receive the permission from share holders to give a donation – I would say the number of shareholders who know about these donations is very low indeed?
I doubt your motives – the rich will still get to give all the money they want by cheating the system (foreign donations are currently banned but Cruddas indicated otherwise).
As far as I know noone has accused the unions from abusing the system of funding – the only times we have seen abuses have been in the behaviour of rich individuals (links to honours, Cruddas, Ecclestone, your big donor – forgot his name).
Perhaps we should look to better enforce the laws we have now and send some people to prison if they are being transgressed
JRC 11:12 a.m. Possibly the best web forum post I’ve ever read. Doff my cap to you.
Stephen W: My union (Unison) has an opt-in arrangement and has had for many years, so I am relieved that you are willing to let me carry on donating in the manner of my choosing. Thank you. I don’t know how it works in other unions. But surely everybody must know by now that the union political funds go to Labour – the other parties remind us of it every chance they get.
If Unions accept an opt-in procedure then they can donate as much as they want, up to millions of pounds, because those donations are then counted as an amalgamation of individual donations, as union members want. If not then they are hit by the same rule as every other organisation, company or rich individual so they can’t give more than the £50,000 limit. That limit also applies to other organisations, charities, companies and individuals.
I repeat. If all union members know and are happy that their money is going to Labour then they should be happy to opt-in to give the same money to Labour. In that case unions have nothing to fear and nothing to lose by agreeing to an opt-in. They can continue to gives millions of pounds to Labour up to whatever amount they can collect. In that case, why fight it? Why not accept it? You keep not answering that core question,
The only possible reason to oppose it is because unions KNOW that many people will choose to not donate to Labour. They know that they will get less money and they are cynically trying to avoid that and are apparently willing to scupper all campaign reform to secure that. It’s a disgrace.
Stuart Mitchell,
Thank you for your kind comment.
Stephen W,
Your question has been repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered if you care to try and understand the true nature of the question and the responses that have been made to it.
The failure of unions to provide “collection agency” services for the other two main political parties demonstrates that unions are not serving their membership well. Unions as well as businesses make donations to all of the major parties. They should both recognize that government and debate and parties are good things generally, and that they need access to and influence with governments of all hue.
The apparent use of “collection agancy” powers to secure and support influence demonstrates that unions are acting differently to indivdiual small donors.
Unions as well as businesses SHOULD make …
It’s been one of those “missing words” monrings!
No, you really haven’t answered the question. You keep answering various different questions. You have just stated that trade unions are different to all other organisations without giving any actual reason why. You have muddled the waters by claiming that someone is trying to stop unions donating as much money as they want.
The facts are simple. Unions can donate as much money as they want, all they have to do is implement simple procedures to demonstrate that the money is being collected as an amalgamation of individual donors. That is all that is required to make everyone happy. And if their donations are as you say, they have nothing to lose by this,
So why are they resisting?
If the answer is just that it is an affront to their liberal right to collect and donate money to whom they choose then that’s not a good enough answer. It’s also an affront to the right of millionaires, charities and corporations to donate their money to whom they choose.
The rest of society does not recognise the unique benevolence of the trade unions, nor see why they should be exempt from rules that everyone else would have to abide by. I repeat, they could continue donating as much money as possible to Labour, all they would have to do would be to put in place simple safeguards to make sure this money is being collected fairly and as they claim.
I’m afraid the only reason I can see for refusing to do this are entirely cynical ones. They should be forced into compliance if they will not accept it voluntarily. Their cynicism cannot be allowed to block all campaign funding reform in this country.
Richard Dean,
That demonstrates nothing of the sort. If I go to the green grocer do I consider them to be serving my needs poorly when they have no meat? Should I not have gone to a supermarket in the first place?
Some trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party, it says so on their tin, if I wish to join but not financially support the Labour Party the state has decreed that they must allow me to. Now you wish to have the state decree that they must not only allow me to but that they should also be forced to offer material support to their opposition. In this world view of yours the trade unions should gather funds for a political party that has declared them to be “the enemy within” and another political party that believes in an individualism that they conclude renders union activity fundamentally unjust. Not only this but that businesses should be similarly obliged. It’s a strangely authoritarian view of liberal pluralism you’ve got there.
You are correct in your final point. Trade union leaders are different from individual small donors. They act as the elected representatives of affiliated members of a political party, just as the delegated representative of any party branch does, only with more members. Individual big donors though, are in principle no different from individual small donors but they get disproportionate influence depending on the size of their donation. The person with large amounts of money gets to directly influence the government in how it treats the person with little money. Trade unions exist in order redress that injustice.
Stephen W,
No, what I have done is demonstrated clearly the fallacy in your position and why to fixate on imposing an opt-in is to miss the entire point. I have explained why the nature of the political levy and its donation to the Labour Party is not morally equivalent to a wealthy individual making a single large donation. If a trade union wishes to offer an opt-in it can, if it doesn’t it can offer an opt-out or no affiliation at all. They should, in a free country, also be free to offer none of those and make political affiliation a condition of membership, so long as it is clearly stated that is what they are offering.
If supporting an opt-in would increase their membership they should do it. If not they should do whatever it is that they wish. There is no genuine matter of principle at stake other than an authoritarian state wishing to impose unjust regulation on trade unions.
If we accept that you are correct in your belief that funds for the Labour Party would decrease on the enforcement of an opt-in, then what is it you are asking of the unions?
You think that they are blocking reform by refusing to agree to such a measure. So essentially your argument is that: even though we know that trade union donations are an agglomeration of small individual donations and that any reform to the maximum permitted individual donation would not affect them, we refuse to legislate on the obvious injustice that single large donations are skewing and undermining democracy unless the Labour Party agree to support wholly unjust, undemocratic and illiberal legislation and voluntarily agree to cut off their own legitimately gathered funds. So your position is that: if they refuse to jump off the cliff that I declare is the only action I will take in good faith then my refusal to do the right thing on this other only tangentially related matter is entirely their fault. And, this is only the case if you are correct in your assumptions. What about it if you are wrong?
Oh, and by the way, you repeatedly include charities in your list . I think I am right in saying that charity status is not available to those who use their funds for party political purposes.
The affiliation of a trade union to a particular party is in conflict with the union’s responsibilities to represent members interests. First off, it reduces their representatives’ access to and influence with governments of a different hue. Second off, it reduces the power of the union to influence the party they are affiliated to, since affiliation is not something that can be easily changed, implying they are less able to use the threat of donating elsewhere.
The whole “union as disinterested collection agancy” concept is a mess. If they really were that, they would donate to different parties roughly (or even exactly)( in proportion to their members freely expressed preferences. The fact of the matter is that unions use their donations to obtain influence, and in that respect they are acting in the same way as rich individuals using their donations to obtain influence.
Put a cap on donations of £50,000 and you will have political parties that only do the bidding of the wealthy who can afford to donate £50,000 in their own name but donate further dollops of £50,000 on behalf of each of their friends, employees and relatives. In that way, wealthy individuals and corporations will continue to be able to donate millions of pounds to political parties. What will that do to British politics? Who decided on this figure of £50,000 anyway? Why not £50, £5 or 50 pence?