It has been reported that about £75m has been spent by taxpayers on supporting the Unions. Why would taxpayers want to do this? Has a Union ever done anything for anyone other than its own members and sometimes members of other Unions? No Union has ever done me a favour, indeed I would say the very reverse. Look for example at the chaos caused in London yesterday by the tube strike.

Discussing this earlier today with a LibDem supporter he thought it politic to provide the Unions with some funding in the hope they will act in a more responsible and conciliatory manner. I call this appeasement and can see no rational reason for continuing such funding. Indeed taxpayer funding of the Unions encourages bad behaviour. It is human nature to be less careful with other peoples money than your own, of which the MPs' expenses scandal of this summer is an eloquent reminder. It seems strange though that tube drivers paid £40,000 a year would want to strike but apparently on that salary they can afford to lose the odd day's pay in support of the need of Mr Crow to 'big up' himself. That can be the only reason for the strike as the other excuses given for it are risible.

The Unions support the Labour party and the money provided to the Unions by the taxpayer gets passed on to the Labour party. There is no argument that I have heard that makes the case for taxpayer support of political parties and in particular the case for taxpayers supporting one political party to the exclusion of the others. I appreciate that the Labour party believes it is special and can behave in ways that would create a media storm if carried out by other parties but just what makes this 'fair', to use a word Labour is currently purloining? Fairness is the issue here though - support of the Labour party out of taxes is plain wrong.