Can this man stop the threat to Labour’s finances?
October 21st, 2006-
How the Tory political funding plan screws Labour
By an extraordinary coincidence I found myself sharing a bottle of wine on a train out of St. Pancras last night with the man who is playing a key role on the subject that I had decided to write about this morning - the Tory threat to Labour’s funding.
This is Tony Dubbins, a leading Labour movement figure for several decades and now chair of the body that links the trade unions with the party. A key issue that he is fighting is the Tory proposal that donations to political parties from either individuals or corporate entities such be restricted to a maximum of £50,000 each year.
On the face of it that sounds quite reasonable and resonates well in the current climate following the “loans for peerages” scandal. For at first sight it appears that the Tories would be the big losers. In fact that’s not the case for the £50,000 cap would apply to trade unions as well.
The challenge Dubbins has got is that as a result a huge series of amalgamations in recent years there are only seventeen unions left affiliated to the party - so the most Labour could get from its traditional source would be 17 times the maximum donation.
It’s been worked out that such a restriction would cost Labour about £8m a year while the Tories would only see a short-fall of just over £3m. No wonder the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, is so enthusiastic about the plan. For from a fundraising perspective a rich individual donor could get round the £50,000 by making several donations in the name of his wife and family as well.
Although Labour, of course, originally evolved from the trade union movement and its links are very deep the unions are viewed very differently nowadays. The Osborne proposal sounds as though the Tories are making a sacrifice and the case about Labour’s traditional links is quite hard to put.
In the current climate I do not think it is feasible for Labour to force through a proposal that would restrict Tory funding but allow it to keep its own income stream.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A rich individual donor surely could NOT get around the £50,000 by making several donations in the name of his wife and family. Just imagine what’d happen if anyone tried that. As the only remaining scam possible, it’d be the first thing that the media would be looking out for and they’d come down on such a donor like a ton of bricks, and quite rightly so. I doubt than anyone with half a brain would risk it.
The £50,000 maximum sounds like a pretty good starting point but ideally I think the figure ought to be lowered over the long run as the parties get used to existing on less money. A £20,000 maximum strikes me as being around the right mark.
This is rubbish. A private citizen in this country should be able to give as much of his or her own money to a political party as he likes - it goes to freedom of speech. I have no objection to putting limits on contributions acceptable from the Trades Unions and Corporations, or in requiring members of Trades Unions to consent to the use of their dues to fund a political party, but private money from a private individual is an entirely different matter. The issue is not putting a limit on private contributions; it’s transparency - and all three parties leave much to be desired on this score.
Some more than others, of course, AH Matlock!
Could the Labour Party not get round this problem by redefining the Unions in terms of their constituent branches? Lots more potential donors then…. I offer the suggestion in a totally disinterested way of course.
The big winner of this strange Tory proposal would presumably be the Lib Dems, who do not have large numbers of wealthy backers.
3 - Just the odd legaly-dubious ones!
I think whathever limits one tries to impose on donations to parties, workarounds and loopholes will be discovered and exploited - we’ve already listed some of the more obvious ones in the first few posts. AHM also makes a serious point - who the hell are the govt to tell me what I can or can not do with my personal income?
Would an alternative approach to control some of the current excesses and (perceptions of) undue influence be to severely limit campaigning expenditure by parties?
I find it increasingly incongruous on the doorstep to be talking about social responsibility and compassionate conservatism when I know we throw £20m nationally at a GE campaign. I think a figure a 10th of that sum would be more appropriate, and such a reduced reliance on mass-marketing techniques may well provide a necessary stimulus to doorstep political dialogue that seems to suffering across the board in recent years.
Ironically, again this would benefit the Lib Dems more, with their small membership base and shallower pockets than the 2 main parties.
Mike, I totally agree with your verdict on Cruddas (I got there a bit sooner) and no doubt it’s been profoundly influenced by insight from your travel host! Cruddas’ main achievement has been to attract support from the left and right of the party on the grounds that the party desperately needs rebuilding, requires a stronger ethical and political purpose and that the trade unions should have a significant role in that.
Let’s just take a respected blogger such as Bob Piper (http://www.councillorbobpiper.blogspot.com/), from the ‘old right of the party:
“If Brown (always presuming he wins, of course) was seeking a deputy who would carry out Prescott’s buffer role (buffer, I said, not buffoon) placating the trade unions and the soft left, that’s just the sort of appeal you would make. At this stage the only other people to express an interest are Mrs Dromey and the Suntan Kid… and on that basis, Cruddas, my old son, you’re a shoe in for the job.”
Andrea alerted me to a piece in last last week’s Observer which said:
“Cruddas was originally regarded as a complete outsider in the race but signs that he is being taken seriously by the Gordon Brown camp have prompted greater interest among MPs.
He has the support of seven union general secretaries and pledges of up to £125,000 in campaign finance, plus access to union databases of more than a million party members, which could prove invaluable organisationally.”
There is a mood for Cruddas in party and the wider movement. Knowing what I know, I’d now make him 11/8 if I were running a book, so 8/1 will easily pay for the family summer holiday next year.
Is there any prospect of Betfair getting round to a next deputy leader market?
7. Alex I’ve contacted Betfair a number of times and nothing has happened. It’s ridiculous. I can have a bet on Danish Women’s Handball or whether in Sweden Princess Victoria will announce her engagement to Daniel Westling during 2006, but not on who will be the next Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Come on fellas, get your act together.
6 & 8. HenryG. Your spot on Cruddas was brilliant - well done. Alas the most I could get on was £23.69. I’ll keep on trying and I’ll write to Betfair again about a market.
I share your confidence about 11/8 or ever tighter.
9. Thanks Mike. I’ve noticed that William Hill tend to put up odds online for the Deputy Leader contest only during daytime office hours, so perhaps at 9am we’ll see something.
I’ve backed Cruddas a range of prices and Hills have always been accomodating on the telephone, so perhaps it’s worth a call. Ladbrokes had a market for a while but doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
People keep saying that cutting spending limits would force parties to spend more time on the doorstep. No it wouldn’t. Parties simply don’t have the activists to do it. It is akin to forcing blood out of a stone.
Not that I disapprove of cutting spending limits…
The AHM line is very traditionally Tory is it not? It’s my money and if I want to buy power with it that is my right.
2 Alastair. You have to hand it to Matlock …. after a night on the tiles sampling every delight of the fleshpots of Beaconsfield, he’s up for a PB slag off at 4.41am !!!!!!
… there’s plenty of life in the old bird yet.
……………
Talking of old PB birds, although not quite of the same gamee vintage as Alastair and replying to Tabman on the previous thread @ 139 about my postnominal. When back in Scotland I raise my online PB flag to show I’m in residence !! ….. I find it useful as PBers flock from yards around to leave small offerings at the main gates …. some of which are quite useful for the roses !!
Henry G
Paddy Power gave me £18 @ 8-1 on the internet and when I phoned they gave me another £20, so the phone call was worthwhile. Hills are also offering 8-1 but only operate this market weekdays 9am-5pm (sic). I don’t suppose the 8-1 will still be available by Monday morning.
Of course what we want is a Betfair market. I have written. I know Mike has. Do you have any objection if I cut and paste your comment at 8 and send it in an email to Betfair? It might just wake them up.
Btw, I did get on Cruddas for £40 at 50-1 a few months back so naturally I’m not too fazed about the limits at 8-1. I placed the bet following a tip on this site. I’m not sure who it was. I suspect it was you. If you would like to confirm, I can promise you an extremely large drink if he wins.
[5] Robin, the Government will always tell you what you can & can’t do with your income - they’ll ban things so you can’t buy them, and they’ll tax you. But as to “workarounds” as you call them - absolutely: the American experience is there for us all to learn from. Political Action Committees, I think they’re called.
The only suggestion I have for that nice Mr Cameron is (and this will also help his sums add up!) that, rather than banning loans or donations from a particular source over a certain amount, he creates a supertax on them, so that every £ lent or given over the limit creates an additional (say) £3 tax liability. That should do it…
13 Peter P. “I can promise you (Mike S) an extremely large drink if he wins.”
After winning £2,000 I should think so ! ….. although if I were Mike I’d get that offer in writing and in specifics, a I’ve known an Englishmans “extremely large drink” to mean 2 litres of cheap own brand cola from Sainbury’s !!!
14
Our last experience of spending rules has shown how disingenuous both Labour and Conservative are. When debating PPERA, no way did they say that they would immediately put teams onto finding loopholes such as so-called commercial loans when they were espousing the principles behind PPERA.
I have no doubt that whatever a new Act says, they will again try to sneak advantages by finding new loopholes. So why bother with the pretence of a new Act?
And I disagree with the implcations at (1) that media attention to loopholes would greatly impact on public opinion. I reckon the public is sufficiently cynical about political funding to discount that issue. So I reckon that’s no curb.
Finally, please can any more public money come in at grassroots, (ie constituency), level, not at HQ level. We need to spread power within the political system, not centralise it, and money is a parameter of power.
[15] … whereas you were rather hoping to be gifted a small distillery on Speyside, eh, Jack? ):
Khalid Mahmood (MP for Perry Bar) has asked Clare Short to resign her Commons seat because she has been elected as Labour….uhm, with the Libdems just 20% behind, I wouldn’t be so happy to have a byelection if I had been Labour!
15. LOL Jack! Well, I wouldn’t have made the offer to a Scot on account of the average drinking capacity up there being approximately the volume of Loch Lomond. For the record, let’s call it a couple of bottles of champagne to be handed over at the next PB party after collecting. I should also point out that the offer was addressed to Henry G, who I believe was the original source of the advice, but I reckon I might buy Mike a half of shandy too.
re 13. I was allowed to put £200 on Cruddas at 8/1 over the phone with William Hill. We’ll see how long that price lasts.
13. Peter, yes it was me, I advised Cruddas here at 50s in mid-September. If he wins, feel free to buy me a 10 year old bottle of Havana Club Rum!
And do and yes do send Betfair my post. I really don’t understand what they have to lose, since as a betting exchange they can only make money.
I suppose Labour could simply accept the Tory proposals on fundraising and add a clause saying “no product placement”
17/19 IA/Peter.
…. Although I have to say my cellars do bear a passing resemblance to a Speyside distillery !!
………………………….
Not too sure about this sudden Cruddarse enthusiasm ….. sure he’ll pick up some support on the left and in the unions but I can’t see him picking off all of the better known candidates. Having said that a Betfair market would have been a good market but in outright betting even a three legged horse will not win race regardless of how tempting the odds may be !
21. OK Henry. If I can find a bottle, I’ll see what I can do. (I work in St James’s and you can get most things there but if you can give me a shop name, that’ll help.)
re 21. I feel that Betfair are disappointed by the lack of punter response to a number of recent political events. The Gwent and Bromley by-elections saw only a few thousand being matched and even after 18 months the total value of matched bets on the next Chancellor is £13,900. The Blair leaving date market has attracted just £131,000. This is peanuts for them.
The only political market that has any real liquidity is the next Labour leader where the total is just under £600,000.
PP have just withdrawn the betting market for deputy as far as i can see - it was available about 20 minutes ago and now it’s gone
23.”Not too sure about this sudden Cruddarse enthusiasm ”
How are they called the Cruddas supporters? Cruddasites?
Interesting article as ever Mike and also quite interesting that the Conservatives plan hits Labour in the pocket very hard.
I wonder what will happen on the party funding issue. I do hope we do not get state funding.
27 Andrea. Cruddarsexuals !
Cruddités.
State funding would be the worst possible solution, if there was a campaign of non-voting against state funding I would most likely join it.
If Brown was really smart he could view the restrictions on Union donations as an opportunity to break their power and access the millions of their members to turn hundreds of thousands of them into Labour party members.
The political party in this country is dead, all attempts to revive it will fail. No one is interested, no one is bothered, why waste your time on it, think of something new. In 1954 the Conservatives had close to 3.0 million members, a formidable army of political campaigners, ready to canvas and cajole, how many now? Labour had 800,000 members and the support of the trade unions, 31 HF, If you think that there are hundreds of thousand of trade unionists itching to jump into the Labour Party, forget it! Many TU members are either apolitical or vote for parties other than Labour. One Tory MP when asked how many active party members he had in his constituency replied, ‘If you mean by active, they can get their zimmer frames out from under the stairs, about a dozen of those’ I remember once reading that Reginald Maudlin when he was the MP for Barnet? said he had about (unbelievable now) 12,000 party members: anyone out there match that?
32. Agree with much of what you say Coldstone except that the political party is not dead. It is much different and smaller.
12,000 members in one constituency? at any time I can’t believe that. Would anyone know what constituency has the highest party membership for any of the three parties with rough numbers?
The MP joke/comment rings true in many areas and it is not just conservative but the others too.
32/33. To highlight this, I was looking at some party membership numbers yesterday and I found a ward that has a conservative councillor but not one paid up member in it. The councillor lives outside the ward so even he couldn’t count.
Re 32 coldstone
Yes Labour Assocs are in a massive decline (85% losing members). By contrast 1/2 of Conservatives Assocs are reporting a small growth and Lib Dems are have slighly more in decline than growing.
http://www.new-politics.com/wp-content/061017%20lp%20survey%20results.pdf
On unions I merely offer the idea that Labour could be mitigate some of the large loss in fees with a stronger real membership. And get out of the dead hand of union influence.
DC 33 I used the Tory MP as that was the quote I recalled, it could equally be used for the others. The difference is the Tory Party has always had a huge membership, in fact it was more than a political party it was a social movement. I would be interested to find the truth of the Barnet Conservative Party in the fifties, I’ve always doubted it, don’t know what the population of Barnet was then, but 12,000 would be a high proportion of the pop. being in the Tory Party.
I was the Conservative Party Agent in Brent North prior to the 1979 election. At that time the party had 7,000 party members. In the ward I became councillor for, which was marginal, the party membership was over 700.
There were active Young Conservative branches (plural) and women’s branches attached to each ward or branch. The party membership of Preston Ward was sufficiently large for the ward to be divided into two branches.
Numbers of helpers were such that the eve of poll leaflet (30,000) was signed off on Monday evening, printed Tuesday, arrived at the office on Wednesday morning, taken to every committee room, counted, batched, sent to helpers for delivery starting at 6pm on Wednesday evening.
On the following day my candidate secured 29,995 votes.
RE 36 Coldstone, with that many members you would not need to campaign, just get your members to vote and bring one other. A formidable army if it was true.
The largest local party for the LDs is reputed to be North Cornwall with something like 800.
East Devon Tories have about 2000 but I reckon that must be topped elsewhere. How many are political rather than social members I do not know.
It surely wouldn’t take that much imagination for the unions to set up structures that would (legally) side-step the £50k limits - for instance, political donation element of union subs going directly to another organisation, depending upon the member’s geographical and/or industry sector location, and those organisations donating money to Labour). If the organisations were set up as individual separate entities at suitable arms-length then it might be within both the spirit & letter of the law.
Apart from the fact that the population at large is much more non politically attached these days to parties even if they will nearly always vote one particular way , the parties themselves particularly Labour and the Conservatives have moved away from door to door canvassing and trying to convert or sign up interested voters . They seem to feel that using a call-centre approach with banks of workers including MPs is the way to reach the maximum numbers of voters at election time . Nick Palmer’s experience at Dunfermline I think shows this approach is fundamentally flawed .
It will be interesting to see next year how much the fall in party membership in their peripheral areas of support means the major parties will not be able to field full slates of candidates in councils with all-out elections next year . LibDems have always been rather better at targetting with their more limited resources of both money and numbers of members and perhaps for the first time the other parties are facing the same problems .
39. According to their statements of account for 2005, North Cornwall LD association has just 423 members
40. While it probably would be possible to do this, it would undermine the power of elected General Secretaries to politically allocate and prioritise funding as well as negotiate over the likes of the Warwick Agreement with the Labour Party. So technically yes, politically no way.
The debate on party members is interesting. In the Conservative party the introduction of the £15 minimum reduced the membership over several years.
Previously many Associations had hundred of £1 “club” members - ie members of Conservative Clubs for whom a £1 levy was paid to the local party and which made them party members. The issue was that they cost more than £1 to service, with posted information etc and many were not Conservative voters. Rather like the Trade Union political levy, the club levy was skimmed off club subscriptions and paid over to the local party.
Conservative clubs are social clubs only loosely affiliated to the Party. Some have close links with the local Association but many do not.
The £15 minimum was intended to ensure that members who qualified for the vote on the leadership and the local candidate were genuine supporters. It also did away with joint husband and wife memberships, so £15 buys one membership and one vote. Some couples I know then just registered one of them as a member.
Thus the “collapse” in membership which some on here like to talk about so much, is somewhat exagerated. It is true that we no longer have 3m members but the 300,000 or so that we do have are real fee paying (if not active) members.
In addition what many Associations now have is lists of “supporters” who are not members but who deliver leaflets, buy the occasional draw ticket, attend functions and donate to appeals. In the Associations I have recently been involved in these often equal or exceed the number of members.
Next year the party will increase the basic membership for the first time in years, to £25. I would expect therefore a small fall in membership but as the general trend in many areas seems to be upwards I would imagine this will be overcome fairly quickly.
The support base for the Party is therefore larger than the raw membership figures would indicate.
12 - As complimentary as ever I see, Jack.
39 - Jon, my association here in Beaconsfield has quite a few more than 2,000. I can’t speak in terms of exact figures for neighbouring constituencies like Chesham and Amersham, Windsor, Maidenhead, etc., but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that they had considerably more than that as well. Surrey Heath was the largest Conservative Association in the country at one time in the not too distant past; whether it still is or not I have no idea.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of members for each of the 3 parties live in constituencies that the party holds. Anyone know if these figures are available?
Interesting Andrea… it must have declined sharply in recent years. I wonder if the biggest is now in one of the University seats.
45.”my association here in Beaconsfield has quite a few more than 2,000″
1821 at the end of 2005 (including 73 living outside the constituency)…and down comapred to 2004 (1946)
RE 44 RikW, I don’t think putting up the membership cost is a good idea. If the party wants to save money it should use email exclusively for those who have email and would prefer it. That would save massive amounts on preaching to the converted.
37. Peter. That is very impressive! We could only dream of having that kind of resource these days.
Associations with large memberships often have many elderly and/or inactive members. Getting new members to replace those who die is a big job and these days even maintaining the numbers is doing well.
44. Rik is right in that the base support is much bigger than the membership. Many are just too tight to pay up!
RE 48, Andrea where are you looking this stuff up? How many in Mid Sussex Conservatives and Lib Dems?
45 The last published accounts for Beaconsfield Conservatives showed a membership figure of 1,941 in 2004 Chesham and Amersham 1,374 Windsor 633 Beaconsfield was a small increase on 2003 the others a fall in numbers . Maidenhead did not give actual figures but stated membership as static .
RE 50, DC, I prefer the £1 membership.
Can anyone tell me the Tory A-List rules do they prevent anyone but locals and A-Listers for every seat in the country, ie can say a Plymouth Tory be barred even from Glasgow North.
51 - it is all on the Electoral COmmission website
http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/
48 - Good God. Google is dangerous in the hands of some people
Those figures don’t chime with what I thought I had been told, and are certainly lower than they were when I was on the board. Things have clearly gone downhill since then. 
52 - Thanks, but Andrea has got there first as one would expect. Only 633 Tory members in Windsor?! I find that difficult to believe!
55 - Whereabouts on the site? I’ve had a look at the places it might be with no success.
Re 55, It may be there but I can’t find it
53. Benedict. You skinflint…lol. Actually there will be some leeway for those who are on very low incomes but it will be for the associations to decide. That is fine. It’s the wealthy who pay very small amounts that irritate me. We have one who insists on a DD of £2 per month for the membership of him and his wife!
Jon, according the statement of accounts (year ending on 31 Dec 2005), here are the figures of LD members in some LD held seats:
Harrogate and Knaresborough 576
Oxford West 551
Yeovil 531
North Norfolk 486
Northavon 470
Bristol West 446
Truro and St Austell 440
Hazel Grove 424
North Cornwall 423
Bath 406
Withington 396
Westmorland and Lonsdale 396
Cheltenham 338 (7 out of the constituency)
Cambridge 337
Somerton and Frome 322
Mid Dorset 312
Taunton 308
Sout East Cornwall 279
Cheadle 277
Romsey 275
Teignbridge 235
Southport 229
Chesterfield 217
East Dunbartonshire 208
Falmouth and Caborne 184
Argyll and Bute 132
Twickenham and Richmond 773
Sutton 611 (the 2 seats added together)
Kingston 590 (the whole Borough)
North Devon: 257 members but adding the register of supporters they reach 433
57. Alastair, the 633 figure doesn’t include those who live in the constituency but have joined the party centrally
58/59. Use the search function and insert the name of the consituency you’re searching for
RE 60, DC I understand it used to be the case that you could join for any amount at £1 or above. It is not a question of being a skinflint but being obviously open to all on any income.
Also I can’t see the point of all the post I get when it is well known that I am on email. Why not email me instead and save punds on that?
I see John Denham has shortened to 150/1 on Betfair for next Labour leader. Anyone know something?
RE 63 Many thanks Andrea. We have several times the membership of the Lib Dems I see.
Still, we need to recruit many more members.
58-59 - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/soayearend2002.cfm
65 - He put in a very solid performance on Jonathan Dimbleby’s, Radio 4, Any Questions programme last night. I didn’t agree with very much that he said but even I, never a Labour fan, can’t deny that he was extremely impressive.
67. I’m a pretty upset by seeing that the Fancy Dress Party seems to have stopped his political activities
64. I agree Benedict we should be open to everyone and that more could be done by email. I got another begging letter the other day…
What really gets me is wealthy members being very tight. Maybe it’s just me who comes across them. I know of one ‘member’ who hasn’t paid up in years. His pathetic argumenent was his letters in the papers ‘carry more weight’ if he isn’t a paid up member.
He comes to the socials as a supporter I guess. His letter writing…well once I recall in the last ten years! and of course who knows if he is a member or not in the public arena.
68. Thanks. It’s on again now so I’ll listen in.
I may be in a minority but I don’t think there should be spending limits on political campaigning.
The newspapers can spend as much as they like talking nonsense about politicians - it’s only fair that the politicians can get their own message across.
Thanks for that sterling work Andrea. Bit of an eye opener I must admit though the Argyll and Bute figure is legendary.
65 - Denham is also one of few labour politicians to speak out against the ‘debate’ about veils which is the sort of ‘dog whistle’ that they supposedly deplored at the last election.
A poll reported today (Guardian link as below) confimed my thoughts from earlier in the week, those who are the bigger problem are not young muslims but young whites (history suggests that they are also usually of low educational attainment). These are, of course, the very constituency who are seizing on the labour ministers’ views and using them to prop up their own racism (not a word I use but, in this instance, how else can you describe thise who say they are superior to another race?!?)
That the Home Office (who commissioned the study) knew this months ago but have decided to take the line they have just makes it even more deplorable.
Whoops, forgot the link.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1928113,00.html
RE 74 UKPaul, I thought John Redwood was far clearer on this in saying that the way Labour are using this was very bad.
Iain Dale suggests Angela Smith is set to join the chicken run, following Grogan a few days ago…panicking MPs, defections, divisions, policy pratfalls…the signs of decay grow ever clearer.
76 - What did Redwood say, did he expand on this?
77.I think Labour MPs aren’t allowed to do the chicken run unless they’ve part of their old seats going into the new one (or if they’re left without a seat).
I’ve now asked LabourHome about the specific rule to see if it’s allowed or not
68,74
I’ve been listening to Any Questions and I agree Denham is very accomplished, straight talking, articulate and principled.
On this site SBS and snowflake have both referred to Denham’s expressed views on immigration being a weakness, for him in terms of political support within the Labour Party. His stance on the “veil” debate may redress this weakness.
Although unlikely, I hope he puts himself forward for the leadership as he would do for me.
Re the Electoral Commision website: Why do some constituencies only list some of their parties and why have some constituencies got no local party accounts at all?
Can anyone assist with this please?
81 If the accounting unit has income or gross expenditure of more than £ 25,000 then accounts have to be published . If less then I presume they can still publish accounts but do not have to .
Re the comment that there are “only 633 Tory members in Windsor?” I think that just refers to Windsor Castle!!
I have just read the resignation leter of Clare Short.
Whatever people think of her past vacillations, I think Ms Short’s particular reasons given for resigning the whip are concise, pertinent and appropriate.
1) we live in a ‘presidential’ rather than a parliamentary democracy - and any honest dissent within the labour Party these days is stifled at birth, regardless of any merit.
2) The ‘presidential’ leader is a person with no understanding of the concept of truth - an emperor with no clothes. And he has spawned a whole set of clones.
3) a period running up to an election where one party is unlikely to gain an overall majority is a fine time to bring in proportional represntation as it will not overturn a ‘clear decision’ of the voters (sic) under the old system.
82. Thanks Mark. So some constituencies which have MPs must have income of less than £25k then.
85. I mean local parties who have an MP from their party of course in their constituency.
There is income and then there is OFFICIAL income.
I wonder whether the EC’s report has been nominated for the Booker prize?
If a rich tory donor is able to make donations in the name of his wife/son, why can’t the TUs just encourage their members to make donations in their own names? Perhaps, Labour has a problem with this as while they can effectively bribe the 17 heads of unions, but don’t fancy their chances trying to persuade the 1.5 million members of unions to actually donate their money rather than just having it done on their behalf. But then as union friends remind me, union members have to opt into the politicial fund, so really there should be no problem.
However, I do take the point that the tories do (or certainly should) have a larger pool of high wealth potential donors. It is worth looking at the US to see the effects on the democrats of banning the unlimited soft money donations.
85 Yes but also parties do not always have separate Constituency parties Conservatives in Newcastle have a joint association for all 3 Constituencies .
89. That doesn’t surprise me as it is not our strongest area and we are a little way off at the moment from winning all three seats there.
77, PM, that just shows that you should never believe what Ian Dale says, particularly in regards to Labour politics. Angela is fighting her own seat (though redrawn to inlcude parts of what was Thurrock and losing a some parts to Bilericay).
90 You are a little way from coming 2nd in any of the 3 seats there LOL .
92. Only one way to go then eh Mark and that is up! LOL.
93 Could go down to 4th behind BNP or 5th behind Greens as you did on Thursday in Manchester LOL Interestingly there is no Manchester Conservative constituency or citywide association listed on the electoral commision site .
94. hmm… I prefer the libdem style opitimism outlook.
Our income must be around 24k in many Manchester constituencies then… I can’t find any Labour listed in Brighton despite them having three seats there.
RE 78 UKPaul, he critised the atmosphere that prevailed a month ago that there were so many taboo things you could talk about with out being called a racist, then also critisised the way Labour ministers were queing up to pick on one minority group all of a sudden.
He also said that the idea that you could ask a constituent to remove an item of clothing to speak to you as ridiculous.
96 - Ah, thanks. The way I see it is qute clear, nobody has any business telling somebody else what to wear as nobody has suffered any harm because someone chose to wear something they didn’t like.
What the problem is, is some wanting to blow us and each other up and going around committing acts of violence etc. Now why doesn’t the government talk about that (pretty obvious I know but you have to point it out)?
If Blair was despised for Lebanon the rest of the cabinet have done a good job of ensuring contempt from any liberal still left supporting them.
It appears that the article today has caused the only two bookmakers who were offering Deputy Leadership markets to withdraw them. This is a huge problem with this form of betting because politics is an area where they usually don’t have much expertise, particularly at a weekend, and their knee-jerk reaction when there’s a lot of interest in one “runner” is to pull out.
So overnight PaddyPower’s automated system for internet bets refused to take more than £33.69 on Cruddas. Then William Hill put its online market up and its call centres opened only to withdraw the bet within an hour when punters like me started investing heavily.
If anyone can answer 54 that’d be great. Another trivia point, read an article saying only one Tory MP in the North East. Who is this this intrepid survivor and what is his his constituency.
“read an article saying only one Tory MP in the North East. Who is this this intrepid survivor and what is his his constituency”
Peter Atkinson in Hexham
ConHome reports that George Freeman has been selected for the safe Con seat of Mid Norfolk.
101. Thanks. Do you possibly know the answer to 54. Also why the doubt on Manchester Gorton being achievable by the Lib Dems. I know the percentage but isn’t the majority more important, 5,000 or under has to be quite winnable in anybody’s book.
BTW I suppose Hexham is an ultra safe rural seats and therefore untypical of the Nort East more generally correct.
103 - Hexham isn’t all that safe. The majority is just over 5,000 now - but in 1997 the Conservatives only just held on by 222 votes.
102. “Do you possibly know the answer to 54″
I think that yes, just locals and A listers can apply to a target seat or a Con held seat…not sure what defintion of “local” they use though!
“Also why the doubt on Manchester Gorton being achievable by the Lib Dems.”
because they don’t seem to do better at local levels than what they were doing in 2004.
I suppose they can win it (if Labour is in a “collapse” situation at national level), but it’s certainly not a dead cert thing
“I know the percentage but isn’t the majority more important, 5,000 or under has to be quite winnable in anybody’s book”
I usually look at the majorities in terms of %… a 3,000 majority would be quite difficult to overtune in Na h-Eileanan An Iar would be more difficult to overtune than in other seats…
Ed Balls for Leeds West ?
http://www.johnbattle-mp.org.uk/
What I find fascinating in this thread is the difference of opinion among Tory supporters.
On the one hand, we have those who see no need to restrict the size of donations, especially those from individuals. On the other hand, there are also those Tories who wish to restrict donations, and even more significantly perhaps, to restrict expenditure and central control of the party.
I suspect that this second group is more in tune with the Chameron discourse - localism, individualism and sunshine -, while the former group looks towards using its financial clout to buy and defend privilege in its own interests.
I think - as an impartial observer of the Tory scene - that the suggestion from Robin Wiggs is the right answer. Introduce stricter controls over campaign expenditure so that “natinoal” campaigns buying in impersonal services cannot unduly influence the results of individual constituencies (as happened last time).
I agree with you, Robin! Well done! Who knows, you will be coming out in favour of STV next…..
106. I thought the same when I saw the list of Labour MPs who confirmed to the NEC their retirements at next GE.
105. Thanks. So it doesn’t apply to no hope seats so a PLymouth Tory could contest Glasgow North. What is the definition of a target list for their purposes anything on the top 200 numerically. Are there Elections in Manchester next year, maybe better able to jdge then, but with Cheadle and Withington nearby, I’d have thought it vital for the Lib Dems to try and win another to create a seat cluster as in Cornwall and South/Soouth West London where they feed off each others strength.
104. 1997 was err pretty exceptional. Any Tory seat thhat could survive 1997 will in future years probably be seen as the safest of the safe by the Tories. Any case it is an untypical seat of the NOrth Easr in geography and demography I guess.
106 and 108. Any chance of the Lib Dems being able to mount a successful campaign against such a parachutist.
109.”Thanks. So it doesn’t apply to no hope seats so a PLymouth Tory could contest Glasgow North”
I don’t know…I’m not sure if Maude has started to think about no hope seats
“Any chance of the Lib Dems being able to mount a successful campaign against such a parachutist”
The seat is pretty safe: a 39/40% majority. Considering that the sitting MP has already announced his retirement, they’ll have the normal selection process (I suppose the leadership can always press for their favourite candidate, but at least it’s not one of those late retirements where there’s the NEC involvement in the shortlisting stage)…there have been worse cases of parachutism
109/10…but the Liberals/Libdems/whatever they’ve been calling had a history of shock result in that constituency
110. So it’s offical, Balls is going for it? You’re probably right but if Labour do struggle I can see the Lib DEms mounting their “local” campaign/candidate, and maybe just maybe a high profile refugee can a burden a’la Lamont.
Also am I right would Manchester Gorton create a seat cluster with Manchester Withingto and Cheadle, similar to Cornwall/South London, in that it would be a big big thing for them strategically.
112.”So it’s offical, Balls is going for it?”
It’s official that the MP is stepping down…but it’s not official Balls is interested (I suppose many of us just noticed how near to his old seat is and so started to speculate if it might be the case)
“Also am I right would Manchester Gorton create a seat cluster with Manchester Withingto and Cheadle”
I’m not saying that the Libdems can’t win Gorton…just that if a GE takes place today, I would bet in a Labour hold. But 2009 is very far and eveything can happen!
Btw, add Hazel Grove to the LD cluster in the area
113. Ah but I would expect us to win Cheadle next time and push them hard in Hazle Grove. Also whose to say Labour don’t retake Withington?
114. DC, on paper I don’t think you’ll run the Libdems close in Hazel Grove*
* that seat name made me think of Hazel Blears…and it’s not a good thing!
113. Ok, Ok I’m not attacking you, was merely wondering aloud about the issue of “seat clusters” to see your thoughts.
114. You three points. One possible. Two maybe but unlikely you’ll have a fight on your hands in Cheadle with precious litt;e to spare for Hazel Grove, any improvement there will most likely be purely down to the national uplift. Three don’t think so Labour are likely to be struggling harder in 2009 than 2005, add Lib Dem MP entrenchment and I’m sure every Tory in the seat will be highly likely to do whatever they can to keep Labour out.
116. I know you were not attacking me.
117. Do “seat clusters” bring added strength and security AS I think they do, do you think.
I’ve always thought John Denham impressive, even when I disagreed with him (e.g. on Iraq). Redwood attacked Labour on the basis that they were raising the veil issue but had criticised the Tories for daring to talk about immgration last year. Denham said this showed that the Tories still didn’t get the point - the veil issue was overwhelmingly about people born here and the fact that Redwood still thinks of them as ‘immigrants’ ahows how far the Tories have to go. They also had a lively exchange on tax. In general Denham got an equal share of the applause on the programme, which is rare on these things for Labour representatives. The whole programme was good (as it nearly always is - much better moderated than the TV version) and is worth clicking on the BBC website for - the others were Anne McElvoy (left of centre Evening Standard columnist) and the deputy head of the Muslim Council, who seemed to lean right on tax issues.
On funding, I think the current system allowing direct mail in infinite amount to target seats (’oh, it’s a national mailing, we just happened to pick some people in that marginal’) is ludicrously porous: the test of whether to count against spending limits should be who gets the letter, not who posts it, as is the absence of restrictions before the last month (something which the Tories exploited massively last year). I’d be in favour of effective low spending limits per constituency, and if that worked we could consider very strict contribution limits. The problem is what to do if we think it impossible to make them effective - merely barring expenditure in one form but not another is a waste of time.
Jon Cruddas has clearly got useful union support, but also two problems to overcome: very limited name recognition (I doubt if 1% of members know who he is, though that will obviously change) and a stance strongly critical of current policy in a party many of whose leadership critics have resigned. At 50-1 he was clearly a great bet; at 8-1 maybe not. The reports that Gordon is discreetly backing him are, I believe, not correct. (Bear in mind that I’m a declared Hain supporter, though, so may see things one-sidedly, though I speak only for myself.)
118. I think they help with appearances in the local media. Once a party has more than one name appearing regularly in local radio and newspapers, the party becomes part of the political landscape.
119. But it’s not just about people born here Nick P, is it? The lady in question has a husband imported from India, something your government has encouraged and which has been a key factor in preserving/reviving these ultra conservative cultural practices. Your government has also done nothing to stop the importation of imams from abroad, who have often brought with them a radicalised version of Islam which has then spread among the established muslim community here. So John Redwood is quite right to link this issue to immigration.
119. Nick. There are of course millions of actual immigrants in this Country. How can John Redwood tell if a veiled woman of Asian or African decent is an immigrant or not? Clearly they are from an immigrant community.
A cheap shot Nick.
119.”Jon Cruddas has clearly got useful union support, but also two problems to overcome: very limited name recognition (I doubt if 1% of members know who he is, though that will obviously change) and a stance strongly critical of current policy in a party many of whose leadership critics have resigned.”
I think you’re right about name recognition, but I’m not sure about your second point. Cruddas is not criticizing the party policies tout court (a la McDonnell), but he’s raising some critical points in a sensible way. That makes people more willing to listen to his points IMO
Even if you can be right about not much strong disagreement with the current policies, I don’ think there’s a 100% agreement either (unless you’re Hazel “let’s smile” Blears and you think we’re living in a perfect world)…so his approach can actually meet some support
“The reports that Gordon is discreetly backing him are, I believe, not correct”
Where has it been reported? I think it has been reported that Gordon Brown’s camp is now takening him seriously…however I don’t think it means they’re supporting him, just that he’s not anymore ignored and dismissed as someone who won’t never win
121. Indeed PM. The imported husbands always seeks to ensure that the foreign culture and loyalties are re-inforced. Especially when it is the husband being imported rather than the wife.
This Government is reaping what it sowed.
Nick Palmer, the veil issue is *not* overwhelmingly about people born here, when 60% of Bradford Muslims are marrying brides from Mirpur.
Nick Palmer, the veil issue is *not* overwhelmingly about people born here, when 60% of Bradford Muslims are marrying brides from Mirpur.
UK Paul - I would hesitate to generalise about working class white people on the basis of a survey of a tiny number of children in a part of Lancashire where the BNP are active.
118. To be honest, I don’t know! I have never really reflected about it.
It is perverse when a government who have created a huge problem in this country with way too much immigration and forced multi-culturalism, then cynicly play the race/religion card with the veil in an attempt to stop their core support drifting away.
I’m also using experience of my own background as a working class white youth (over twenty years ago admittedly but I still keep in touch) and of my experience of teaching in different parts of the country. I was careful not to generalise and did not refer to ‘all’, merely reflecting the poll’s findings in that a greater percentage exhibit racist attitudes among whites than non-whites.
In my experience the greatest bigotry was among boys of poor educational attainment in Essex, it therefore came as no surpise that the BNP have been making gains on that fringe of London.
In a less ethnically diverse area than the North West you could find this being more widespread or it might make it less of an issue. The poll is important, however, because of the very fact that it is from an area of tension and it shows where that tension is coming from. Either the government can address that or they can do as they are and try and ignore the problem that exists in the working class white community. Why they are doing the latter, apart from being scared to act, I don’t know.
119. Nick correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that Jon has only voted against the Government over education policy and has been otherwise quite constructive. He’s also part of the Compass group which does offer quite a challenge from time to time, but that’s what members expect.
The unions will be very influential (disproportionately so, but that’s the rules of the game). That suits Cruddas. Trade unionists in the labour party will get two votes too. If they think Cruddas is sound, they’ll back him twice of course.
On your point about profile, the more people that people hear of him and see of him like what he says. I always thought he had a good chance, but now I think he has a great chance. He’s bright, but not aloof. I think a lot of people can back him with little problem and he has 6-9 months to get out and about and meet them face to face and listen to what’s happening in their communities.
Ministers of course have serious jobs to do, and cabinet responsibility to adhere to, so I think they’ll find it harder to get out among the constituencies. On the other hand they have a higher profile, so I guess it cancels each other out. Lots of people know of Peter Hain, but that doesn’t mean lots of people like him! (I do by the way).
I think Cruddas’ main argument is that ‘the Labour Party has been losing its way’. That resonates with a lot of people for a LOT of reasons. Of course Peter is limited in what he says because he’s in Government in a very important role in Northern Ireland. That’s not his fault, but leads to the key strength of the Cruddas campaign - he can represent the interests of the party to the Government, and not the otherway round. I think had this deputy election come up 4 or 5 years ago, Hain would have been in with a huge chance. Times are different. I think Cruddas is in the right place at the right time. I really hope that Hain plays a major role in the future of a Labour government, but many in the party will feel they need Cruddas as Deputy Leader.
131.”Nick correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that Jon has only voted against the Government over education policy and has been otherwise quite constructive”
yes, HenryG, apart education policies, he has just a rebellion over an amendement of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill and another vote about Access to Parliament which could have covered Brian Haw’s protest camp in Parliament Square (not sure if the vote was whipped or not)
Anyone else noticed lots of fireworks going off tonight?
I’m surrounded by people letting them off and it isn’t kids messing about. Is it to celebrate the battle of Trafalgar or is there something else going on?
88 But then as union friends remind me, union members have to opt into the politicial fund
You might like to inform your union friends that actually they have to OPT OUT of the political fund once the vote has been taken to set it up 9 aprocess that happened in the eighties as part of Mrs T’s efforts to reduce union power).
Inertia means most members whatever their political allegiance don’t think about the political fund(I am a case in point being a union member who can’t be bothered to go through the work necessary to opt out). The political fund is also used to help finance campaigns for causes the union supports and not just for donations to the Labour party.
I would ban any body corporate from donating to political parties and force them to live in the real market of ideas where the actual voters need to be convinced.
Interesting that DC and PM blame this government for allowing British citizens to marry husbands or wives from overseas when this has been the policy of all governments for years.
Is it now Conservative policy to deny British citizens the right to marry husbands and wives from overseas?
135. Of course not Roger but this government has done nothing to encourage intergration and assimination and has done everything to destroy British values and culture. Ironicly one of those British values is tolerence.
UK Paul. I think you make the mistake of thinking that all clothes are an aesthetic choice. Infact they can just as easily be uniforms and as such have messages attached which any society may consider unacceptable. For instance if the Klu Klux Klan in full regalia chose to drink in a bub in Brixton it could easily be seen as threatening or people dressed with Nazi insignia in Golders Green.
In all the discussion about Cruddas nobody has mentioned the likely impact if he wins on the key middle of the road floating voters who will determine who wins the next General Election.
I suspect Cameron won’t be able to believe his luck if Cruddas wins.
121. PM. How has this government encouraged British men and women to find partners overseas? A ridiculous post unless he’s suggesting the government’s is running a dating agency?
133 - It’s Diwali today and Eid-ul-Fitr on Monday (but not sure if you’re in a part of the country where they’d be widely celebrated).
140. Well I do have people of the right religions to celebrate them nearby but don’t know if they will with fireworks. There more likely to be watching the X-Factor as we have more intergration and asimilation in Conservative areas than in the Labour ghettos.
141 - celebrating a festival with fireworks equates to being in a “ghetto”?
137 - In which case it’s their views that are prosecutable not their clothes. To take an example, Prince Harry wearing a Nazi Uniform is pretty stupid but not a danger, a member of Combat 18 doing the same is potentially a danger. It’s not the uniform that matters it’s the person.
Why the government are attacking a surface (literally) issue and not the underlying issue they *really* want to talk about I don’t know. Like I said, it’s a dog whistle, talk about one thing and maybe the public will think you’re talking about something else (and listening to vox pops on this they’ve thought right).
138- agree totally. All this talk about how he plays with the unions or party members is peripheral clap-trap; apart from getting their vote in phase 1. It’s what they can bring to the party in their dialogue with the great unwashed public that really counts. I’ve always felt that Labour need a real contrast: GB as PM, Y as DPM. Y=female Y=English Y=sunshine. Now if Dave Sunny Cameron could only change sex/party we may be on to a winning team there.
142. No. The point I was making is that our ethnic minorities tend to be more intergrated and assimilated in Conservatives areas. That may be because they are second/third whatever generation and have moved out from inner city areas where most new immigrants tend to head. Also they are not spoon fed multiculturalism like they are in Labour areas.
I don’t like fireworks whatever the event!
144. CL. Dave equally respects both suni and shia!</