@sister_of_mercy Said
I like Milliband's idea but I can't imagine Cameron agreeing to a threshold that low.
@jmo Said The £5,000 cap thing I would support, but a cynical part of me thinks the reason that Labour support it is because of the nature of their funding. Union funding would mean that they are technically being funded by thousands and thousands of people paying a small amount, even though in reality the unions are paying excessive amounts (far more than £5,000) whilst it technically counts as lots of small donations.
Cameron proposed a £50,000 cap. I presume this is because it would avoid the Conservative party having to overhall their 'Donor Clubs' structure: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx
The most exclusive donor club in the Tory party is the Leader's Club, whose members give the party £50,000 p/a and are invited to meet David Cameron and other senior figures in the party at dinners and other events. There are a hierarchy of other clubs who give £25,000 p/a, £10,000 p/a, £5,000 p/a and so on, each receiving benefits proportional to the amount they give. I suspect the whole thing is just a policy exchange network for wealthy lobbyists.
Labour obviously have a natural advantage in this issue. They've wanted a lower cap for a while; I think a £50 cap was even proposed not long ago. The Conservatives would suffer a lot as a result of this. Yes, Labour are funded by the unions, who are funded by their members, but I don't think it's cynical to admit that. It's more democratic, in my opinion, to be funded by hundreds of thousands of workers than by a few rich people. Labour should probably budge, though, on the 'opt-out' Labour donations policy of the big unions, if they want to be consistent. Then again, it's arguably for the unions and their members to decide on that, not political parties.