Top of the list for this afternoon's business - prioritised by delegates at the conference - is motion 63 on the union's relationship with the Labour Party.

The motion calls for a review of the union's political funds, and asks "what do we get for our money"?

The NEC have submitted an amendment to the motion. Although the speeches and the leaflets they have put out argue that we don't need a review because we had one five years ago, their amendment accepts the idea of a review whilst gutting it of any potential impact. The NEC aren't actually speaking against the motion, but by putting up an amendment they are trying to avoid the embarrassment of losing a vote on this subject.

Sadly some very good friends and comrades are supporting the NEC amendment. Gordon Mackay says in the debate, "I am proud to have Katy Clark as my Labour MP". So would I be, Gordon, and I absolutely agree that the union does need a Labour government. But supporting the NEC makes that less likely because if the union bureaucracy won't challenge the Brown government and channel our members' anger and frustration then I fear that members will express that anger and frustration at the ballot box.

Keith Sonnnett argues, again rightly, that we need a political fund. But then he suggests that the movers of the motion want only to "get their grubby hands on our members' money". Why, oh why, oh why, do the union leadership have to present calls for the union to democratise the political structures as being only about where our money is spent?

There is so much more at stake. The question of where our donations go is not central here. The money we give to Labour gets us seats on Labour's NEC, on the policy forum and at every other level in the party. Yet far, far too often, the UNISON officials who sit in those seats simply do not speak up for or vote for the policies we agree at UNISON conference. The real debate we need to have is why the union doesn't articulate our policies as well to the Labour Party as we do when we are talking to ourselves at UNISON conference.
There is a real problem with the political funds which the NEC are only talking about at all because Bromley branch submitted the original motion.
The NEC position seems likely to carry the vote but it is clear that the current leadership must be on notice that covering up for the Labour government is not a tenable strategy for leading our union.