'What example are you setting?' Burnham accused of U-turn on support for political donation cap to appease Labour's union paymasters

Andy Burnham has been accused of backtracking on his support for a cap on political donations to avoid displeasing Labour's union paymasters.The Prime Minister backed a £500,000 limit on cash gifts to parties when he was campaigning to return to Westminster in May, amid a row over £15million donated to Reform by Thailand-based billionaire Christopher Harborne.In an email the PM told Shaun Bowler, the founder of WakeUpGB – which campaigns for stricter rules on money in politics – that such a cap 'would guard against the perception of any one party being unduly influenced or swayed by one person or organisation'.But he has backed away from lending Government support to efforts by Labour backbenchers to bring in a similar cap, following lobbying from unions who give Labour millions of pounds every year.MPs including Stella Creasy and Alex Sobel want to amend the Representation of the People Bill when the Commons returns next week, but the PM is understood to believe the issue needs further debate.The GMB, which has handed over more than £2.4million to various arms of the party since the start of 2025, has said the amendments would have 'significant unintended consequences' despite specific carve-outs for trade union affiliation fees.In a letter to Mr Burnham, seen by the Mail, Mr Bowler accused him of bowing to union pressure.He said: 'What is the actual difference between unions and any other person or organisation making large donations? 'They all give money to gain influence. It is totally undemocratic, and it's one of the main reasons Parliament has lost our trust. What example are you setting now? The Prime Minister said he supported a £500,000 limit when he was campaigning to return to Westminster in May It came amid a row over a huge cash donation to Reform from billionaire donor Christopher Harborne'Is your message that it's fine to commit to something, but the moment someone with money asks you to change it, that's fine too?'The Government had already announced a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas backdated to March 25 and this will now also apply for the first year of someone's time in the UK. The letter in full Dear Prime Minister, Sadly it appears you are going to break your promise to me — and the nation. I enclose a copy of our email exchange in which you told me, in black and white, that you believed there should be a cap on political donations. Suddenly, weeks after being elected, you have made your first major U-turn. Why are you threatening to fail on your commitment? I believe the unions have been applying pressure on you. What is the actual difference between unions and any other person or organisation making large donations? They all give money to gain influence. It is totally undemocratic, and it's one of the main reasons Parliament has lost our trust. What example are you setting now? Is your message that it's fine to commit to something, but the moment someone with money asks you to change it, that's fine too? Please be honest with the nation and recognise that the donation status quo is legalised corruption and has to change. Make it a level playing field — go to a proper cap. Replace the funding void that MPs are so scared about with a civic voucher, given to every voter every year. Be brave. Don't give up on your promise to me. You told me you wanted 'a wholesale culture change in Westminster.' This is your chance to actually deliver the start of that cleanup. Show us that politics can be clean and trustworthy. Don't surrender to the mess. Which is the greater loss — union money, which can be replaced, or your credibility and our trust, which cannot? Instead of fighting you on this, let me help you make that change. Yours sincerely, Shaun Bowler On behalf of WakeUpGB.co.uk A Labour source said: 'This Bill was designed to deliver our manifesto commitments on Votes at 16 and to strengthen political donation rules to guard against foreign interference and that's what the government is prioritising.' In an email exchange with Mr Bowler in May, when he was running to become the Makerfield MP ahead of a successful bid to replace Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Burnham said he supported the idea of a cap.'This would guard against the perception of any one party being unduly influenced or swayed by one person or organisation,' he added.'As to the level, I think that would have to be subject to wider review of political funding but my gut feeling would suggest somewhere in the region of £500k.'When pressed on Wake Up GB's proposal for a £1,000 cap he said he would like to see it start higher, but be 'reduced over time'.The amendment tabled by Ms Creasy, the Walthamstow MP, initially suggested a limit of £100,000, which she is to change to £500,000 to soothe unions. Mr Sobel suggests setting it at £1million. Both contain clauses for unions. But the GMB, in a letter to MPs last month, claimed: 'Trade unions are already subject to a level of statutory regulation over political expenditure that no other membership organisations face. 'Political funds are governed by legislation, members have clear rights to opt out, and unions are subject to extensive transparency and reporting requirements.'Affiliation arrangements are also fundamentally different from political donations and should not be treated as though they are the same.'Last week, it was also revealed Mr Burnham received donations worth more than £325,000 in the three months before he entered No10.Transparency data showed prominent Labour donor Lord Sainsbury, party grandee Lord Blunkett and former Greater Manchester night-time economy tsar Sacha Lord were among those who gave financial backing between May and July.