The depressing truth is that we must fund party campaigns

It's entirely predictable and so, so depressing. But step back for a minute, put yourself in the place of a party treasurer. You're charged with raising as much cash as possible. What's more effective: getting it from rattling tins and bring-and-buy sales or turning to someone you know has cash to burn?

No major corporate will want to be seen to be so closely identified with a political party, so that means falling back on individual entrepreneurs and wheeler-dealers. By definition these are wealthy people and it's highly unlikely they will have amassed their money by paying schedule E income tax. These are the very same "high net-worth individuals" who have the private client departments of banks and tax avoidance advisers eating out of their hands.

In other words, it's quite likely the parties have no choice but to deal with those who do their damnedest to pay as little tax here as possible.

It's not their fault but the system's. Until we get central funding of political parties this is the reality. It's Lord Levy who used to do the job for Labour, pulling in favours among his mates. It's Lord Ashcroft for the Tories. It's desperate attempts by the politicians to mask what is really occurring.

One of the successes of New Labour has been its ability to cosy up to business. John Smith began the process when he was leader and after he died, his successor, Tony Blair, picked up the mantle. Blair and Gordon Brown fell back upon something called the Industrial Research Trust for funds for their private offices when in opposition. The trust was financed by donations from individuals. The point about its title was that it professed no allegiance to a political party — anyone seeing a cheque made out to it would assume it was for genuine research into some aspect of British industry.

Roll forward to December 2009 and the establishment by Labour of the "General Election Development Board." It's chaired by David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, who said at its launch: "We know that those with a vested interest in the election of a Conservative government are pumping money into the Tory coffers. Our job is to ensure that the voice of the people, not just those with the power of privilege, is heard through to polling day."

As ever with a politician, it is worth dissecting his remark. On the one hand he is drawing comparison with those who give to the Tories. On the other he makes reference to the need to pay heed to ordinary people. How the latter squares with tapping up the rich is anyone's guess — but it sounds good.

At a recent meeting of this board, I'm reliably informed, James Caan of Dragons' Den fame was sitting opposite Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary and one of the senior Labour figures charged by Brown with steering the general election push.

Caan told Alexander what was wrong with Labour policy, what could be done to improve the framework of these islands of ours.

Nothing wrong with that, you might say. Caan is an intelligent successful businessman. Having met him I can vouch for his being a thinker and that he sees his role as a TV personality as much as an opportunity to extend his entrepreneurial reach as to create a platform from which he can articulate views about education and the economy.

Much credit to him. But Caan is also a non-dom — same as Ashcroft. What rankles is that almost every aspect of government policy necessarily involves expenditure funded by the taxpayer. If Caan wants a seat at the top table he should not enjoy privileged tax status. Laying down the law to the Government is one thing but doing it from the position of someone who has set out to reduce their tax bill in such a fashion is quite another.

Caan's business rivals might suspect what patronage he is enjoying under the guise of the "development board" and claim unfair advantage. I don't say this to be critical of Caan. He isn't the problem. It's the machinery that is wrong. We need state funding and only then will we achieve the level playing field and transparency that we seek.

Willie Walsh's chance to bring Unite down to earth

The first weekend of British Airways strikes and first blood to Willie Walsh.

That's apparent from the number of BA flights that weren't cancelled, the number of cabin crew who went into work as normal and the lack of public support. It's also behind Unite's hysterical attack on Walsh's "macho" management style and the call to the airline board to reopen negotiations.

This is a critical juncture for BA: the directors must hold their collective nerve, not give in and stand behind Walsh. Previous administrations were too laissez-faire in their treatment of the unions with results that are now too obvious. Far from treating this as an emergency, the BA board should see it as an opportunity.