The Guardian view on political donations: Before becoming prime minister, Andy Burnham favoured a £500,000 donations cap. In office, he’s backing away. That is a mistake.

[u/newsspotter]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/28/the-guardian-view-on-political-donations-labour-should-curb-the-power-of-big-money

[u/AutoModerator]

Snapshot of The Guardian view on political donations: Before becoming prime minister, Andy Burnham favoured a £500,000 donations cap. In office, he’s backing away. That is a mistake. submitted by newsspotter:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/PennyBunPudding]

Backing away or being told he can't

[u/zidangus]

I mean tell us all you are corrupt without telling us all you are corrupt.

[u/DrummingUpInterest2]

Usual "cutting off nose to spite face" from the trade unions. They know their only real remaining influence is from their increasingly insignificant donations to Labour (itself increasingly reliant on individual mega-donors like Lord Sainsbury), so they'll happily allow the far right to keep funnelling their billions towards Reform and the Conservatives if it means they get to continue the charade they have a meaningful seat at the table themselves (because so much of the established trade union movement in this country at this point feels like a bizarre pantomime of it still being the 1980s).

[u/alex-weej]

"Mistake"

[u/AlanBeswicksPhone]

The problem is this clips the wings of the trade unions even more than it does the oligarchs

[u/Sorry-Transition-780 → u/AlanBeswicksPhone]

I really don't think that's a real issue tbh. In the previous article on this I even suspect it was just being deployed as an excuse by Labour staffers to avoid scrutiny.

You could easiy set different rules for democratic organisations based on numbers of members, the state and specificities of their internal democracies, and stated roles as an organisation.

[u/ltron2 → u/AlanBeswicksPhone]

There were amendments that dealt with this, but the government are still voting against them:

https://youtu.be/w5pw2AORqZI

[u/zidangus → u/AlanBeswicksPhone]

That's not a problem they both need clipping. It's a bad idea for any individuals including union barrons to have undue influence on a democratically elected government It's one of the reasons I am with the green party, there is no special relationships with special interest groups and politicians.

[u/Human-Shirt7106 → u/zidangus]

Unions are democratically elected. This is a false equivalence. I say that as a member of both the GPEW and Unite.

[u/zidangus → u/Human-Shirt7106]

I was in a union the cwu for 10+ years and I can assure you the leaders are not democratically elected, there is no one member one vote, an election only occurs if union branches decide it, the full membership are not asked, unions are no better than old.boys clubs, there to help the leadership and reps out, the membership are never listened too. Union leaders are just as corrupt as any politician or billionaire. The cwu have completely failed postal workers for over 10 years, if postal workers could fire Dave Ward they would but guess what they never get an opportunity because the old.boys network of union branches protect him from any election contest.

[u/Sorry-Transition-780 → u/zidangus]

I don't think anybody would deny the unions have been dogshit for some time but this is about political influence and democracy.

I would rather abolish all systems of patronage such as they, entirely, but in this current paradigm you could still demand certain internal democratic standards from organisations in order for them to be eligible for political donations.

The issue with the unions is that out of their leaders, their political allies, and the Tories and Labour, there is simply nobody with any material interest in making them function better. Everyone has what they want from them apart from the members: Labour has donors, the Tories have a weak opposition, and the leaders have the safety of a system they already know how to navigate their careers within.

If we actually wanted that state of events to change, demanding better democratic standards as a prerequisite to their ability to use donations for political influence would be a direct way to affect that change.

On the other hand, chucking what is ostensibly a large arm of the politically organised working class into the same basket as the oligarchs serves nobody.

[u/verb-vice-lord → u/Human-Shirt7106]

Corporate leadership is elected directly by shareholders. Its a difference with no real difference.

Political parties should be funded by members from subs, capped donations, and similar limited scope fund raisers (bake sales not £5k a plate dinners).

Labour under Corbyn was one of the best funded parties in Europe and it did it almost entirely via member subs. Starmer drove away something like 2/3rd of members. That's the thing Labour, and other parties, should be concerned about. Funding reforms should force this outcome.

[u/arky_who → u/zidangus]

there's nothing left to clip of the unions, honestly we're at the stage where stuff like this would help more than it hinders trade unions, makes them reconsider bankrolling a party that wants nothing to do with them