You can have closer ties without funding leadership campaigns.

What is your point here?

@Missing The Point:

I agree with you.

Also, I’m not sure how secret ballots would make all party members vote for the person that they want to win. They can still see media coverage, opinion polls and hear the opinions of other party members. If there is a clear frontrunner after all that, people are more likely to vote for the person they think will win.

@David Morris: I think it would be so that MPs don’t use their vote in a way that they think will put them in the good books of who they think will be the leader, rather than who they want.

Andy Burnham who secured the support of no Trade Unions thinks they shouldn’t have a role in electing the leader of the Labour Party.

Would he be saying this if he had the backing of any of them?

Yes, it seems that the reason Andy has brought this up is sour grapes really. Not to say that he does not have a point though.

Unions now largely represent public sector workers.

If Labour wishes to become the party of public sector producer interests, so be it.
Perhaps someone has to be.

But it is not an election-winning strategy.

Agree with Andy on both counts.

MP ballots should be closed. Had they been perhaps some people would have been willing to back an alternative to Brown and Labour could have has a contest then. Instead they were afraid they would lose favour and fall foul of the smear machine his wing of the party was eventually caught out using when it was turned on the Tories.

And it is somewhat ridiculous that an internal debate about the future of the party involves private campaign funding of any sort. I’ve got no problem with unions and the Fabians having a vote. They are affiliated organisations and a big part of the wider movement that reflects a very broad range of people. But the cash side of it is a little bizarre and shouldn’t be needed.

Burnham’s an idiot. This is simply sour grapes. If he thinks Labour can attract a sugar daddy like Ashcroft he’s a bloody fool too. Labour came from the trades union movement, its in the party’s DNA!

@8 Cough *Lord Sainsbury* Cough.

Well seeing as the unions founded the Labour party Burnham seems a touch confused . I guess he wants to be tory lite, like Blair. That ship has sailed and sunk long ago.

People seem to think he’s talking about Union funding for the Labour Party.

I thought the article was quite clear that he was talking about funding individual candidates for the leadership.

Can people really not see why that’s a little different? Supporting the political wing of the labour movement to win elections is one thing. Supporting individuals interests within that movement with cold hard cash is a bit different. The Unions do have influence. And he’s not saying they should lose their votes. But the union vote is different to the membership vote – and yet their money is trying to sway the membership vote too.

And that’s where things look wrong.

If you actually bothered to listen to what Burnham had to say, you would see that the main line he is attacking is that trade union bosses can select their chosen candidate, and then recommend their members vote for that candidate, which I find, as a trade unionist, thoroughly undemocratic. Further, throw in the fact that unions can financially back candidates, and you’ve got a serious blurring of OMOV taking effect.