The vote was 53 to 47 per cent against a Political Fund within the terms of the employment laws, which require trade unions to set up special funds for party-political campaigning.

The National Executive Council had committed itself to supporting the fund and faced criticisms that it was stifling the debate by taking an unbalanced position. The NEC also allocated £25,000 towards campaigning in favour of the fund, in addition to the £10,000 budgeted for the ballot itself.

Letters and emails urging a yes vote were sent to all members from the General Secretary, President, Vice-President, Honorary Treasurer and Campaigns Committee Chair while only one email was sent representing the opposing side of the debate.

However, NUJ President, George MacIntyre, described the process and the relatively high turnout as representing "a good exercise in union democracy".

He said: "Journalists have made it clear they want their union to be politically independent and we all agree on that.

"No-one wants the NUJ to give its support to any party.

No campaigners in the NUJ Political Fund debate are claiming a major boost after news that the union's leadership in Ireland has withdrawn support for a Yes vote.

At a Dublin meeting of the Irish Executive Council on Friday the previous policy of backing the NUJ's national executive in urging a Yes vote was overturned, ignoring a personal appeal from NUJ president, George Macintyre.

Growing concern at the conduct of the campaign, particularly the refusal of the NEC to allow No campaigners access to members has caused resentment in Ireland.

Members there criticised the NUJ's use of several emails, plus letters and swathes of the NUJ's magazine The Journalist to campaign for a Yes vote while allowing No campaigners just one email.

The NUJ has also refused a request from an Irish No campaigner to be allowed to email Irish members.

The NEC allocated £25,000 to the campaign for a Yes vote in addition to the £10,000 cost of the ballot. No funds were allotted to the No campaigners.

However, Pete Murray who is chairing the committee formed by the NEC to organise the ballot and campaign for a Yes vote, has insisted that the poll was "not meant to be an open, consultative ballot".

Pete Murray, who is chairing the NUJ Political Fund Campaign Committee has pointed out that Jeremy Paxman did not, as reported on this website, threaten to resign if the union should vote to establish a political fund. Jon Snow's claim that he will resign was reported accurately.

Paxman, as quoted in The Guardian, said: "There is no need for the union to have a political fund in order to function. In fact, being politically aligned, in any direction, would make it much harder for many members to carry out their jobs."

We are happy to correct this error.

As voting begins in the NUJ Political Campaigns Funds ballot Chris Wheal, who is leading the No campaign, has demanded that senior figures on the Yes side correct a key inaccuracy contained in an appeal to members.

An email from the union's President, Vice-President and General Treasurer and purporting to represent the views of the national officers claimed: "Most unions do have political funds."

However, Wheal has written to George MacIntyre, Jim Corrigall and Anita Halpin respectively insisting that the claim is a "gross falsehood" and asking for a retraction.

Wheal refers to the trade union Certification Officer's report for 2003 (section 7.13), which states that only 32 unions had political fund ballot resolutions in force at the time of publication and that only one other is known to have voted to establish one since.

However, Wheal notes that the Certification Officer lists 197 trade unions as currently registered, 71 of which are affiliated to the TUC, meaning that unions with political funds are actually in the minority.

At the time of writing, the members in question were yet to respond.

Why are we having a ballot?

The NUJ's Annual Delegates Meeting in 2003 voted to ballot members on the establishment of a political campaigns fund.

By law, if a trade union wishes to campaign on political issues that could involve asking people to vote for or against a party in an election, the campaigning must be paid for from a fund specially set up for the purpose. This can only be done after balloting the members and members must actively opt to contribute to the fund.

How much would it cost?

Initially, 50 pence per month.

If we vote to establish a fund do I have to pay?

No, payment would be entirely voluntary.

So why is it so controversial?

By rule as well as by tradition, the NUJ is not affiliated to any political party. This is seen as essential in preserving the ability of members to report objectively and without any accusations of bias.

Would establishing a fund mean that the NUJ could affiliate to a party?

The National Executive Council has insisted that the NUJ will not affiliate or make donations to any party or individual politician.

So why establish a fund?

Supporters of the fund believe that establishing a fund is essential to guarantee the NUJ's right to campaign on major issues across the board. They argue, for example, that campaigning against intimidation by the British National Party would be open to legal challenge.

So why not establish a fund?

Opponents of the fund are unconvinced by the arguments in favour but see dangers in the NUJ appearing to do anything that would compromise the impartiality - and potentially the safety - of its members.

Could the union fall foul of the law?

In theory, any member could lodge a complaint against the union for breaking the laws regarding political campaigns.

Surely no member would instigate legal action against his or her own union?

There have been cases in the past where NUJ members have taken the union to court and these have proved very costly.

Has a union ever been taken to court under the laws on political campaigning?

Yes, in 1987 NALGO was found to be in breach of the law. However, the people on opposing sides of the argument have contradictory opinions on the relevance of this.

The Yes voters say that it proves that there is a real danger while the No voters say that there were special circumstances in the NALGO case and that the ruling at the time actually guarantees the right of unions to campaign politically if not telling people how to vote.

What else do the Yes voters say?

A large number of members on both sides see the political campaigns law, which was introduced by the Thatcher government, as being just another one of the raft of anti-trade union measures implemented to restrict union influence. Many Yes voters would like to establish a fund to react against that and reaffirm the union's independence.

What else do the No voters say?

The No voters say that the Yes campaigners are misrepresenting the argument by inaccurately - or even falsely - claiming that the fund is needed. They also point out that the NALGO case is the only one of its kind, involved special circumstances and that there has been no similar case in the past 17 years.

Is it a left versus right debate?

No - there are far left, politically moderate and other members on both sides.

Who supports a Yes vote?

The General Secretary, Jeremy Dear, supports the establishment of the fund as do the President, George MacIntyre, Journalist editor, Tim Gopsill and the union's national officers.

Who supports a No vote?

The No campaign is being led by Chris Wheal, who is a long-standing and respected NUJ member, with a record of service to the NUJ at a high level. High-profile members Jeremy Paxman and Jon Snow also oppose the fund with Snow saying that he will be forced to leave the NUJ if the union votes Yes.

When does the ballot take place?

The ballot begins on 23rd February.

How should I vote?

That's up to you but please vote.

The NUJ is holding a ballot on establishing a political fund. Here are three reasons to vote no.

1. The NUJ can be political without one.

The law is clear that unions only need political funds if they want to be party-political. Section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 covers financial support for (or against) individual political parties and people in, and candidates for, political office.

Unless the NUJ gets party-political, the law is a red herring. The trade union Certification Officer's political ballot expert, David Taylor, says: "The act takes a very narrow view of political activities. It is all about political parties. Unions can campaign for a change in the law from general funds."

The NUJ should not be party political, therefore needs no political fund. For the full text of section 72, plus statistics on unions with and without political funds, see www.nopartypoliticsnuj.co.uk.

2. There is no threat of a legal challenge to the NUJ.

The yes campaigners claim that the Nalgo case of 1987 shows that an innocent union campaign could be deemed party-political by the courts. This is not so. In the Nalgo case each leaflet and poster criticised the Conservative government by name and then urged people to vote. The union's publicity officer had warned in advance that the campaign would be unlawful. The Nalgo national committee passed a motion calling for members to vote for a change of government. And Nalgo commissioned Mori to research how many floating voters there were in key marginal seats who would help Labour, and then concentrated the campaign in those marginal seats. Nalgo knew in advance they were breaking the law by being party-political. There have been no similar cases, or even similar complaints, against unions since 1987. To read the case yourself go to: www.nopartypoliticsnuj.co.uk.

3. The 1987 case does more to protect the NUJ than threaten it.

The judge in charge of the case, Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson, commented on what is now section 72: "The first thing to note is that even in the case of an unaffiliated union without a political fund, that section does not prevent a union from engaging in political activities… nothing in this judgment should be taken as suggesting that a publicity campaign organised by a union at times other than an election and therefore at a time when neither directly nor indirectly the union be inviting anybody to exercise a vote at the time, is unlawful, merely because it expresses disapproval of the government's policy. Unions, like everybody else, are entitled to disapprove of government policy and say so." For full transcript go to: www.nopartypoliticsnuj.co.uk.

Let's keep the NUJ independent. Vote no to the political fund.

Chris Wheal

Prominent NUJ members ask you to vote for a political campaigns fund

Look ahead to the next UK General Election, probably in 2005. The future of the BBC, and of public service broadcasting in general, will be a big issue.

At least, the NUJ will want to make it a big issue. The union is giving terrific support to the BBC journalists in the post-Hutton crisis. We've already set up a campaign and we want it to have a major public impact.

After all, the future of broadcasting and the work our members do - indeed, of their jobs - is on the line.

But just as the election campaign is getting into full swing, someone takes the union to court and our campaign is stopped in its tracks - because our criticism of the government or any opposition party is said by the courts to encourage the people to vote against them.

And UK law says that unions must have a special fund - a "Political Fund" - to finance campaigning that could be taken as being for or against any party.

The law is the 1992 Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act (Consolidated) but its roots go back 100 years, to the days when the unions were building the Labour Party. The NUJ, of course, has never been a Labour Party union and never will be, but we are a registered trade union and subject to the law.

There is a way out, and that is to establish a political fund ourselves. That's what the union's Annual Delegate Meeting (ADM) decided last year, and that's the decision we are implementing now.

It means the union itself, and not the courts, can decide what to campaign about and how. Far from jeopardising the NUJ's political independence, it safeguards it.

The fund has to be approved in a vote of all NUJ members. Your ballot paper will arrive next week, and we're asking members to vote "yes".

Most unions do have political funds. Over the years, with the ability to campaign with confidence, they have achieved many of the laws, policies and public services that we now take for granted.

We are working journalists. All of us are subject to employment laws that cover salaries, hours and conditions of work. As journalists we are affected by laws and regulations on media ownership, official information and secrecy, defamation, broadcasting and so on. And as citizens our families and communities rely on public services like the NHS, schools, and public transport.

The Political Campaigns Fund - raised from voluntary 50p a month contributions - will be used to fight for changes in the law - and to defend rights the trade union movement has already won.

The NUJ could not stay out of the political arena if it wanted to. The union has a right and a duty to secure the best benefits it can for its members, and that means speaking out on these matters.

Let's make sure we can do it effectively. Please vote "yes" for the Political Campaigns Fund.

George MacIntyre, President

Jim Corrigall, Vice-President

Anita Halpin, Treasurer

NUJ National Officers

When you get your ballot paper, first turn it over and read the other side.

There you will find the legal notice required by UK law, which, despite objections, the NUJ has been forced to include. You will be told about section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which governs political fund ballots. It will make clear the reasons a union must have a political fund.

The only reasons a union needs a political fund are if it wishes to support a political party or political candidates either in public elections or within political parties.

The NUJ does not need a political fund to campaign against censorship, against broadcasting bans or against freelances being taxed at source. It does not need a political fund to campaign for better rights at work, good pensions, in support of freedom of information of for any other of the NUJ's current or likely campaigns. And northern organiser Miles Barter can continue to urge members to write to their MPs supporting striking journalists, as he has done over the past few years. In fact, if the NUJ wants to host a reception in Parliament to which MPs of all parties are invited, it can, without a political fund.

The NUJ only needs a political fund if it wants to spend money supporting one political party over another or backing a particular candidate within a political party. Cross-party work is not covered by the act.

Don't be bullied into voting Yes because of scare stories that the union will fall foul of the law. The one case the union uses to make this threat occurred in 1987 - more than 16 years ago. And The Journalist got the facts wrong about that case too.

It reported that the public service union Nalgo's "Make People Matter" campaign was judged an attempt to get the public to vote against the Conservative Party but claimed "even though that was not stated".

In the FAQ section, The Journalist said: "Courts have ruled that campaigns critical of the government, even if no party is mentioned, can be construed as party-political."

This is an extract from The Times law report at the time:

The Nalgo campaign was quite clearly a party-political campaign aimed at getting people not to vote Conservative. And every leaflet named the political party.

The NUJ campaigns on issues, not party politics.

Even when the Conservative government rushed through changes in employment law to spite Dave Wilson's success in the courts, many Tory MPs opposed the move, including TGWU member Peter Bottomley who defied a three-line whip to vote against the government.

No party can guarantee NUJ support on freedom of information or the BBC, or on almost anything. We must say what we believe in and get as widespread support as we can, not kowtow to political parties.

And we won't be alone. According to the Certification Officer's 2003 report, only 32 unions had political funds last year. A 33rd has since voted to establish one. But the TUC claims 71 unions as members and the Certification officer lists 197 trade unions as currently registered.

Unless you actively want the NUJ to support a political party, vote against this proposal - don't abstain, ignore it or forget about it, otherwise the yes voters will win.

Only a NO vote guarantees the NUJ's independence.

NUJ General Secretary, Jeremy Dear, urges members to vote in favour of establishing a Political Campaigns Fund.

Political fund ballot opens on 23rd February

Dear friends,

As you will know, the NUJ is conducting a ballot of members over the plan to establish a new Political Campaigns Fund.

The voting papers will be going out on 23rd February and we want to get the maximum participation in the ballot.

I'm [sending] bunches of leaflets to be handed round to members. These answer many of the questions that members have been asking.

The union's annual conference last year voted to hold this ballot and the whole membership has the right to a say on whether or not we establish one. We are keen to have a proper debate because it is an important step the union is taking.

We are taking it because the nature of union activity is changing. Of course we still represent members, negotiate on their behalf, defend their rights, take up individual cases and where necessary take industrial action. But political campaigning has become an ever more crucial part of our work in defending members' interests.

By establishing a Political Campaigns fund the NUJ can protect its political activity - without jeopardising our political independence. Not one penny will go to any political party. Every penny will be used to finance campaigning on behalf of NUJ members.

Payment to the fund will be voluntary. You can vote "yes" and then decide whether or not you want to help build the fund yourself.

In recent years the NUJ has made big advances. We have more members, we have formal recognition in more offices and more pay agreements.

We also have a growing influence. Already this year we have established ourselves as a leading voice in the debate over the future of the BBC. The campaign for the BBC's independence is political and we must be free to criticise the government (any government) when they threaten media freedom.

This is certain to be an issue in the next UK General Election, when trade union campaigning is scrutinised particularly closely.

But in any case, we also need to make our political campaigning more professional and better resourced.

We want to raise the voice of the NUJ. We need the Political Campaigns Fund to influence government policy and key opinion-formers, at national and international levels.

We want to be sure. Please urge your members to vote "yes" for the union's voice.

Don't hesitate to contact my office if you want more information.

With best wishes

Jeremy Dear
General Secretary

NUJ plans a Political Campaigns Fund (National NUJ site)