I'm terribly sorry if you misunderstood the point, which was that Labour had a large increase in income - over £2 million more. You attributed it to the unions, I said that they didn't have the money. They don't. They levy is paid by 3 million odd members, that isn't union money, it is paid through the unions. They wouldn't have any choice over paying it even if they wanted to stop.
The unions have had diminishing membership for years, their power has been neutered, hence the need to merge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6531749.stm
They wouldn't have an extra £2.5 million to put into labour and if they had the money there would be little or no point in them doing it when they need to look after what they perceive to be the interests of their members.
You didn't force me into anything, you aren't that good. I simply elaborated on a very short post that you chose to fly off the handle at.
You then made your silly "I suppose" and "well known fact" contradictions.
As you are so keen to point out, it is really of little interest, so have your final say, as you are always wont to do, and leave it at that.