Is the real story that Labour’s going broke?
November 25th, 2006
-
How serious a financial mess is the party in?
While everybody is focussing on the row over Labour ordering its councillors to pay a proportion of their allowances to help it wipe out its massive debts are we missing the bigger picture - that following the loans for peerages crisis that the party is in danger of going broke?
This latest move, backed by threats of disciplinary action against those councillors not obeying, follows the decision by the party to levy a 15% “tax” on all contributions that are made to the the campaigns of the candidates in the coming leadership and deputy leadership elections.
Labour, surely, would not have brought in draconian measures like this unless it was going through a massive financial crisis.
Clearly conventional fundraising must be extraordinarily difficult at the moment and recent filings at the Electoral Commission have shown how challenging it is for the party to attract money in the wake of the loans for peerages affair.
Just who would want to become a big donor to the Labour party when those who have gone before have had their motives questioned and have found themselves being part of the Yates of Scotland Yard investigation?
So with donors drying up, Tony Blair’s General Election loans having to be paid back and the cost of servicing the accumulated debt rising by the day how serious is the party’s position? It doesn’t look good.
There is the move towards state funding of parties but this is hardly the right climate to have that debate. And why should the Conservative party be supportive of the idea when it, as far as it appears, is finding it much easier to attract gifts?
Forcing through legislation that would provide tax-payers’ money for parties could be highly dangerous for Labour. Why should the public bail them out of the mess they got themselves into?
This is a job that will test Gordon’s political skills.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Why should the public bail them out of the mess they got themselves into?
Why?
With 10 yrs of absolute majority… the BBC & police under friendly control… Murdoch still onboard… 4yrs till next election…
Why not?
This could end extremely messily for Labour. They are very unlikely to get more than a couple of million from the rich if there are no honours available, and with bad publicity attached. The unions’ own resources are limited, and the quid pro quo is likely to be a leftward shift on policy. There’s a limit to how much they can force from their membership. Any attempt to force through state funding would be a vote loser and would probably be blocked by the Lords, making the political costs that much more difficult.
The alternatives are unpalatable. Labour might have to do what the LDs had to do after 1988: run themselves on shoestring budgets until things pick up, and spend nothing on areas which are not absolute priorities (which would mean putting up with potential heavy losses in the mid-terms, at least). Blair might go for broke, and sacrifice his own reputation by indicating, as carefully as possible, that he will have a large resignation honours list entirely devoted to people who’ve proved their worth to Labour, but the risks here are obvious.
Some of the sums donated by local Labour groups are staggering. According to the Electoral Commission website, Hackney Labour group has given £80,000 to party coffers in the last 5 years, Croydon £70,000 and Hammersmith £61,000. Apart from the sleaze angle, these figures show how heavily dependent Labour is on counciilors to fund its election machine locally. Many of the biggest donors were Council groups which were decimated at May’s elections (e.g. Hammersmith, Ealing and Croydon). They will be unable to find the same kind of money at the next Geenral Election.
3. Wouldn’t that list would have to go to the independent honours board (or whatever it’s called) for approval the same way that the regular lists do? And if any one (or more) were turned down, the implications for Blair - already facing a criminal investigation - would not be good. In any case, it’s a one-off trick. Besides, the key point is in you rightly indicating that it would destroy what’s left of Blair’s reputation, which is hardly something he’ll do for a party I don’t think he cares about anyway. Who remembers Nixon for being the first Republican politician to win two presidential elections in the 20th century (I’m excluding Eisenhower)? He’s remembered more or less exclusively for Watergate. If Blair gets arrested over cash for peerages, he’d go down alongside him, which is probably of more concern to Blair than the act of being arrested itself is.
The simple answer for Labour is to spend less. The Lib Dems manage on much less per year; if they don’t have the money, don’t spend it. (I accept that someone with Gordon Brown’s record at the Treasury is unlikely to take this course). It is the sign of someone in the public sector too long that when the funds aren’t there, they think they can just solve the problem by raiding people’s pockets without changing their ways. Revolutions start that way.
Reading through last night’s postings, I think Mystic Moon has been treated harshly by some posters just for raising genuine concerns.
I too think that this is a pretty big story. I’ve got no moral objection to councillors voluntarily paying money from their allowances to party funds - that’s a matter for individual councillors and most reasonable people won’t mind.
What we appear to have here is something quite different though - a political party (in this case Labour) earmarking “x”% of taxpayers’ money for its party funds.
I hasten to add that I don’t, myself, believe that this is a story about corruption. It’s a story about a deeply dubious practice coming to the attention of the previously unsuspecting general public.
That’s probably why the debate on this site is dividing (broadly) along the lines on “elected politicians of all parties” (who see merit in this practice) versus “ordinary people” (who don’t). On this site the elected politians are numerous and can easily defuse this issue when it’s raised here. Out in the real world they’re a tiny, tiny minority of the population and they’ll not find it anywhere near so easy to defend themselves.
Although I don’t believe there’s any evidence of corruption I do believe that this story is going to run and run - simply becaue what’s going on looks immoral.
so if labour does go broke how does that effect the government. I assume the government can continue in office. At least the Labour Party should go bust before Gordon Brown steals anymore of my pension and takes the country towards a debt swollen boom & bust.
Just another nail in Blair’s legacy.
Quite how Labour’s most successful election-winning leader squandered massive public goodwill, 3 large majorities and benign economic conditions to deliver a legacy of disjointed/headline driven policy, massive tax & spending rises without any real public sector reform, Iraq, cash-for-peerages, other party-funding related sleaze (Ecclestone, Hindujah, etc) and leavng his party virtually broke & with little ability to attract fundraising, is a souce of concern, amazement and amusement to many of us.
It would be a delicious irony if Blair turns out to have left the party more dependent upon union funding with a consequent leftward policy shift.
It is also fitting if history remembers him primarily for Iraq and cash for honours sleaze. He should be deeply ashamed of the first, and if the police investigation turns up what we think it will, he should be ashamed of the second also.
I often reflect on Thatcher’s legacy in compassion. Whether you agree with the policy or not, you cannot deny that She used 3 large majorities to radically transform this country in her 11 years. Can anyone honestly say has done anything significant or radically transformational with his 3 majorities?
*she* not *She* - clearly she hasn’t been deified!
Martin Bright the presenter of Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on ‘Cash for Honours’
has written an interesting piece
in this week’s New Statesman magazine.
5. “Wouldn’t that list would have to go to the independent honours board (or whatever it’s called) for approval the same way that the regular lists do?”
The current situation, IIRC, is that none of the committee’s recommendations are binding on PMs as it currently stands. A big one-off trick to get them through the Parliament is probably what Labour needs.
Of course, Labour will have to economise stringently in any circumstances. But parties need serious money to fight elections. The LDs have been able to manage reasonably well because they have a fairly small group of targets to concentrate on, and don’t gain the benefits from increasing the overall national share of the vote that the main parties do with a well-resourced campaign. When the LDs upped their game in the last election, they had to make greater fundraising efforts, and we all know one of the more unfortunate results of this approach.
In any case, this leaves the Conservatives in clover. They’re unlikely to face serious limits on their fundraising capability, and Labour got into this mess by their determination to try and match the Conservatives’ ability to raise war-chests. If Cameron gets an effective electoral strategy in place for the Tories now, especially in places like the NW where Labour has proved more resilient post-2005, then they’re likely to find limited opposition from depleted Labour ranks.
11 - if the Cash for Honours bombshell explodes, it won’t just be the Labour Party hit by the shrapnel. That could prove embaressing for the Conservatives and their fund-raising efforts too (or perhaps they’re congenitally less likely to feel embaressed).
While it’s possible to prove linkage between nominationa for working peerages and donations, I think it’s rather less likely to bear fruit in the Conservatives’ case. Besides, the Conservatives have their traditional lead among wealthy donors and well-off supporters to fall back on.
In the event that the LDs have to forfeit the Brown donation, the electoral point could apply to them too.
12 Tabman. My deer Tabeers, youre spelin is as “embaressing” as myne !
as an aside the BNP are holding their annual conference this weekend in blackpool.
as an aside the BNP are holding their annual conference this weekend in blackpool.
15/16 red flag. Blackpool eh … presumably the nasty little vermin will rename it Whitepool for the weekend !
Steven @ 6 - I think the key thing is your use of the phrase ““x”% of taxpayers’ money”. Councillors’ allowances are pay for doing the job as a councillor - just as a nurse, teacher or policeman gets paid by taxpayers’ money.
If any of them decide to give a portion of their pay to a political party, would you say it is misuse of taxpayers’ money? Yet their salaries come out of our tax bills just as councillors’ pay does - and (as with the councillors’ allowances) they receive just the same regardless of whether they give money to a political party or not.
There’s a possible issue about whether money was taken pre-tax and whether a council payroll department should be helping collect the money, but the basic principle seems to me clear.
Hello PBers from Australia, from a first time poster, long time lurker, although I occasionally post at Conservative Home.
For what it is worth, the Australian state of Victoria is counting the results of its state election result as we speak. Labor has a massive majority in the 88-seat Legislative Assembly and will defend most seats very successfully.
May I recommend the following sites to PBers who may be interested:
http://www.pollbludger.com
(similar to PB in that it is a cross-party site, but there is no betting)
You can also catch a live stream on the ABC News Radio website:
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/
- which is feeding off ABC Melbourne 774 (Melbourne’s station which is a cross between your Five Live, Radio 4 and local radio). Labor’s panel member is federal deputy Labor leader Jenny Macklin, and the Libs by federal minister for small business, Fran Bailey.
Results show approximately a 9 seat gain to the Liberal and National parties from Labor.
Greens had hopes to gain lower house seats of Melbourne and Richmond, with Melbourne apparently still in play.
Observer @ 13 - there is also the risk for the Tories that their use of the Midlands Industrial Council to keep donors anonymous may yet come back to bite them.
If the people who gave money to the MIC had given it direct to the Tory party, they’d have had to meet all the rules for transparency in donations to political parties.
But give the money to the MIC which then in turn spends it on Tory campaigning and … hey presto, you can be anonymous.
Tabman, aren’t you forgetting that the first donor to go to gaol was a LibDem donor. The Al Capone scenario will bring the Labour miscreants down. too.
The implication of all this is that only the Conservatives will be able to fund the next election campaign properly.
If that point were to be hammered home by Labour post-Blair, together with a campaign arguing that it was the only way to avoid this kind of sleaze, I am not so sure that a State Funding Bill would not pass.
I have to disagree with Mike - the French and German experience is that this is precisely the right climate (and the Parliamentary arithmetic is good too) for such a proposal.
19 Alexander Drake. Welcome to PB … lurk no longer !
May I also commend you for not mentioning a certain cricket “match”.
…. although we confidently expect to score 700 runs in our second innings and thus your reticence is perhaps, understandable. Excuse me one moment as I remonstrate with the large bacon like objects overflying my estate……….
11. “But parties need serious money to fight elections.” Who says?
Just because parties spend big money doesn’t mean they need to. There isn’t a golden rule in this - 1945 wasn’t won because Atlee spent more than Churchill. It can be said with consistency is that the more a governing party is focusing on its ability to spend its way to winning, the less its chances of winning. But surely we’re sufficiently world-weary to realise this is just day to day behaviour for a seasoned politician of getting their excuses in early. If Labour loses this one, my fingers won’t be pointing at the empty bank account, my fingers will be round the throats of Jowell, Hoon, Prescott, Hewitt, Hodge and co for being the most pathetically swaggering gilded vaccuous….
[24] You must have very big fingers, Mancunian…
24 - It’s difficult to see a way around avoiding it. 1945 was highly unusual, and, in any case, ushered in a brief period where, with both main parties able to rely on extremely large activist bases and a much higher degree of voter participation and regimentation. In those circumstances, party funding was less important than it has been before or since.
Of course, the level of funding isn’t the most important determinant, or the Conservatives and their allies would have dominated every election since the Liberal split over Home Rule. But it is important, and there can be an inclination on the part of public to ignore just how necessary the business of raising funds for electoral organisation is. I don’t think parties, in any situation, can really afford to limit the amount they spend under current conditions.
The sums involved in rnnning a political party are pretty small. some of the people on the Midlands Incustrial Council could individually fund all the aprties from now until the next General Election. I don’t think any party is going to go broke. And if they did, so what? The Labour PArty would be replaced by @The New Labour Party”, the Liberal Democrats would become “The Liberals”, and the tories “the To$$ers” and nothing would have changed.
21 but not for something that had anything to do with the lib dems.
Mark P @ 18 — if a mandatory levy of councillors’ allowances is pukka, then Labour can solve its funding problem by doubling, trebling or quadrupling these allowances, and hence its levy income.
23. Very kind of you Jack W. I chose not to comment on the cricket in order to avoid a diplomatic incident! In fairness to England, the weather in Brisbane (my home town) at this time of year isn’t exactly England-friendly.
o/t Victorian results show Labor improving, looking like losing only four seats to Libs rather than seven. Only a minor primary vote swing to Libs, good result for Family First, a new minor party. National Party (think Countryside Alliance) gain one, maybe two, seats.
29 “In fairness to England…” ?!
You sure you’re Australian, Alex?
With Labour likely to lose hundreds more Councillors next year they will have even less money. Also where Labour control Councils but then lose them, they will lose the 3% of the extra money that cabinet members get too.
The Labour Party going bankrupt would be poetic justice for Brown bankrupting Britain.
30. Peter. : ) I have nothing to add.
For every Industrial Council there is a Smith Institute that funds the Clunking Fist when he needs it. And they seem largely in denial about their support.
29 Alexander. Many thanks. Excellent to have an Oz poster.
Off again now house hunting ….
…I may be some time !!
32 You are very welcome here, Alex.
Can you punt on UK events from Australia? If so, you might like to make a small each way investment in State of Play in today’s Hennessy Cognac Handicap Chase at Newbury (2.40).
It is currently available at a very generous 8-1 with Betfair.
Any contributions to the Smith Institute do not need to be declared as they are not a political party, so money is, apparently, flooding in. And if they happen to support the Clunking Fist in his leadership campaign the money will not be his and so the Labour party will not get its tithe either.
What, even at this stage of the Labour sleaze fiasco, with Plod at the door, they are still playing the same tune?
Mind you, the Institute employed Brown’s Balls for a couple of years. Kept him off the taxpayers back I suppose.
The NEC is personally liable for the party debts… does it mean that they’re the ones who should pay if the party goes broke?
37. Hmm got confused re Islington North. Is there anotherv Labour seat nearby where the Lib Dems slashed the Labour majority into the hundreds. Re targetting I think if the Lib Dems just focus on playing defensive against the Tories they will ship seats. The Tories will do better next time and will take Seats off the Lib Dems, how well and how many seats is of course the question, though I don’t think even the most optimist Tory thinks more than 15 at present. Therefore the Lib Dems must look to gains from Labour. What’s your view on Teather, I seriously don’t think she would be a sacrificial lamb. So assuming say lost deposit for all other parties, as she scoops the entire anti Labour vote, how many Labour converts does that leave her needing.
Manpower. What is the Lib Dem membership in London. In terms of how many seats they can target, because obviously the likes of K & C Lib Dems will presumably be deployed where useful and a paper campaign run in their constituency. So what is the total Labour pool Lord Rennard can call on in London.
The EU Directive for The Funding of Political Parties is also in the air. It bans all private funding of political parties at ‘European level’. How will parties prove that they don’t have private funding at ‘european level’ if they have it at national level? It would be much easier for them to go for state funding at national level. This would meet with approval from Brussels.
Obviously several missed the excellent Channel4 programme on ‘Cash for Coronets’ last week. It revealed that during Thatchers reign 6% of leading British companies donated to the Tory Party yet 50% of the honours given to business went to the bosses of these 6% of companies! Any mathematician care to work out the statistical possibility of this being coincidence?
[39] Tapestry - do you know how the directive envisages Euro-elections being funded?
18 - No. I’ve clearly stated that I have no objection to any individual giving any amount of their money to a political party. Whether or not that individual is payed by the taxpayer doesn’t enter into it. It’s that person’s right to decide how to spend their own money.
I very sharply contrast that with the idea of a political party deciding that a councillor has to give a certain amount of money to that party.
My point is a very simple one.
If the individual decides to voluntarily donate his/her allowance money to his/her party (even up to 100% of it) then that’s perfectly moral and we have no grounds for complaint.
If the party decides to cream off some of the councillor’s allowance money without him/her having any say in the matter (even as little as one penny) then that’s a matter of great concern to the public and a highly dubious practice.
Guido has covered labour’s finances ad nausium. They are in one very large hole on this one.
There is certainly no question of them being able to fund a snap election. Unless of course money is being hidden in some organisation like the Smith institue or other Labour equivelent of the MIC
Would be funny to see Labour go bust but not good for the country.
Peerages for money is as old as time.
It’s the least offensive way to trade money for influence. Otherwise money buys allocation of contracts, which is far worse. As a member of a legislative chamber, you cannot actually manipulate the outcome of laws and government decisions. You are allowed to contribute to debate. That’s all.
People with money and connections are not easy to bribe. They make bad cronies. The real worms are the ones on the make like Mandelson, who’s now buying a multi million pound property when he couldn’t even afford a couple of hundrend thousand in 1997. Where has the money come from to pay for it? Come to that who’s paying for Blair’s £3.5 million edifice?
People with their own money have independent resources to find out information, and can provide alternative viewpoints to the mainstream. Their careers have taught them a lot about life.
The only thing that is new , was Labour’s idea of making secret donations illegal. They then decided to circumvent their own law and pretend donations were loans. It would have been much better for all concerned to have continued with the old method.
As for Blair and Brown, maybe this is a twist too far.
42.”If the party decides to cream off some of the councillor’s allowance money without him/her having any say in the matter (even as little as one penny) then that’s a matter of great concern to the public and a highly dubious practice. ”
In the end the party supports them a lot (re helping to get them elected), so I don’t think it’s shocking to ask some financial help in return.
To avoid further controversy, they could make it voluntary. I would bet in the majority of councillors deciding to give the money to the party anyway. Especially because the ones who won’t do will probably pay it during the reselection process.
41. The Directive does not allow private funding of political parties ‘at European level’. That presumably means all Euro elections must be state funded. Parties such as UKIP will not be funded to fight Euro elections once the Directive is enforced.
38. The Lib Dem membership in London was 9,405 at the end of 2005
47. Thank you. Interested in your opinion on the other points. Also if you were running the Lib Dem campaign in London and according to majority and judgement how would you allocate your trooops in number you think to held and target seats. I presume there would be no Tory held target seats in London.
What surprises me is that the person who ought to be responsible for the effective running of its organisation is the Chairman Hazel Blears. She should be the one re-building its finances yet she is missing from any public discussion and only pops up on tv to be the attack bunny against the Tories.
Under Hazel the finances have just got worse yet there is no criticism. Blair is in a mess on peerages purely because his previous Chairmen were so useless and he had to step in and do it himself. But he did appoint all of them!
Members thinking of voting for her as deputy need to first look at the state of the party under her chairmanship.
Re the contributions being required by the Labour Party from Labour Councillors:
a)Several people have referred to this as Taxpayers money. It is not. It comes from their allowances which are theirs. If they banked the allowance and then sent a cheque to the Labour party you couldn’t even determine where the funds originated from, so this is silly.
b) I have no problem with Labour requiring their councillors to make a donations from allowances as a condition of being a Labour councillor. If they don’t wish to they can stand as an Independent. It is a free choice. It is certainly common practise for LD councillors to contribute a proportion of their allowances to the local party.
c) However if the Labour Party are removing the funds directly then that would be appalling. Having said that I can’t believe they are, are they? Surely they can’t have access to the councils payroll?
I case anyone is wondering I absolutely don’t support Labour!!!!
45: “In the end the party supports them a lot (re helping to get them elected), so I don’t think it’s shocking to ask some financial help in return.”
Absolutely right - although not necessarily music to some councillors ears, many of whom seem to belive that they are elected through massive personal followings and any party allegiance is purely incidental.
As a Con Cllr I am under no illusions that I am elected partly through my own and the ward activists efforts … but mainly because of the Torch (now tree)logo that was in front of my name on the ballot paper.
Re voluntary: “I would bet in the majority of councillors deciding to give the money to the party anyway.”
Certainly a more sensible and less controversial way of doing things. I make personal donations at ward and constituency level - I don’t even grumble about buying the obligatory raffle tickets at all the respective events, (although I do object to winning them)
But then because I still manage to maintain some form of gainful employment it could legitmiately be argued that my donations are not linked to allowances.
Cllr Paul McLain
23. Jack W. Good to see “We English” are not too disheartened by the cricket score. From what part of England do your centurial jacobite bones hail?
45. In my opinion, any money that goes from a publically funded individual to a political party ought to pass through that individual’s bank account on before going to the political party.
Cream it out of the councillor’s bank account - fine by me. Don’t cream it off before it even reaches the councillor! I appreciate that it’s the same money either way but at least if it goes through the individual’s bank account the process looks cleaner.
The levy on councillors’ allowances looks very bad, state funding of political parties through the back door (what with councillors’ allowances being paid for by the taxpayer). It looks too much like the nomenklatura, and is an open goal for Labour’s tabloid enemies such as the Express (so right-wing these days it makes the Mail look comparatively mild).
As for the wider issue of state funding of political parties, I’m all for Short Money and election addresses being delivered by the Royal Mail (something which might be extended to local elections), but the prospect of taxpayers’ money going on attack ads and billboards will go down like a cup of cold sick with the electorate. It’s all very well for people to say that taxpayers’ money should go into education and raising awareness, but the enormous sums spent by both main parties (happily not from the taxpayer) last May didn’t exactly represent value for money - all those billions spent, and (considering the much greater ease with which postal votes could be obtained) the turnout was all of 2% up on the historic low of 01.
And, as so many people interested in politics (politics junkies even) said at the time, it was so boring.
Plus, even more damagingly, it (state funding of political parties) looks like a party plundering the electorate’s pockets to rescue itself from the consequences of its unpopularity with said electorate. Apart from the cash for honours business, one reason money is drying up from potential donors is that Labour doesn’t look as good a bet to win the next GE as it did in the run-up to the last three GEs. Again, it looks too much like the nomenklatura.
Perhaps the Labour Government will give grants to Unions. The unions in turn will give funding to Labour.
Hang on a second, that’s what they do already?!?
48. I won’t dare to suggest the Libdems a target strategy, especially because I’m sure a couple of them with their “inside knowledge” will rip me apart very soon!
I see that Cameron is ready to invite Polly to the Tory conference
54
A tangential point verging on O/T :
58
Software has truncated my message. The comment was not directed at 54, but at my own posting of which you have now lost the benefit
23 et al.
Q: What do you call an England cricketer with 100 next to his name on the scoreboard at the Gabba?
A: A bowler.
25 Jack W- picking up on the cricket- even I cannot see how the Aussies could get much enjoyment from the excesses of the last 3 days- they have humiliated, sliced, diced, and garroted our team- they have the mendacity to take our team down for little more than 150, after scoring 600 plus (declared)- and then go out for an unnecessary batting jaunt, and nonchalently pick up another couple of hundred runs just to prolong this terrifying, hope sapping, despairing ordeal for our team.
It is has been an act of brutal savagery, a show of complete domination and it ain’t pretty. Unfortunately in cricket you cannot throw in the towel and England’s suffereing is prolonged by this unnecessary act of vengance. We are being made to pay many times over for having the audacity to take the Ashes back.
O/T Re Hennessey Cognac Handicap Chase (Newbury 2.40)
Further to my earlier advice I can now confirm that State Of Play will not be inconvenienced by the soft going. However, the price (now 8-1) may drift further so delay any bets until near the start time. Sixteen runners remain, so it’s still place money for the first four. Even if it goes down to three, an eeach way bet is still good value.
25 Jack W- picking up on the cricket- even I cannot see how the Aussies could get much enjoyment from the excesses of the last 3 days- they have humiliated, sliced, diced, and garroted our team- they have the mendacity to take our team down for little more than 150, after scoring 600 plus (declared)- and then go out for an unnecessary batting jaunt, and nonchalently pick up another couple of hundred runs just to prolong this terrifying, hope sapping, despairing ordeal for our team.
It is has been an act of brutal savagery, a show of complete domination and it ain’t pretty. Unfortunately in cricket you cannot throw in the towel and England’s suffereing is prolonged by this unnecessary act of vengance. We are being made to pay many times over for having the audacity to take the Ashes back
State funding is one of those things, like ID cards, that is on my ‘they shall not pass’ list. To allow the state to perpetuate the state is beyond the pale, parties should be funded privately (and legally) or not at all.
As for the idea that EU elections can only be state funded, is that true? If so that’s a severe indictment of the European parliament, the sort of area where it has no business at all.
Surely more interesting than this tedious and partisan discussion on what councillors do with their money is the the very welcome move to the left by David Cameron.
Instead of wasting his energy aping the Labour Party in every particular why not join them? I’m sure Gordon would be happy to have a Tory with such mainstream New Labour ideas cross the floor and considering his support among the Tory faithful he could bring them along too?
And Ming always wanted to be the principal opposition so everyone’s happy…..
58 - Very on topic surely, what post did you think you were referring to? The electorate’s response to the national and local politicians lack of engagement has been clear and direct. Why should we fund you directly having withdrawn our votes as a protest in the first place?
59 - And my post referring to your post which turns out to have been not referring to 54 is therefore now irrelevant (but the point therein still stands)!
Tapestry @ 44 — almost certainly the person paying for the Blairs’ “£3.5M edifice” is Cherie Booth QC, the well-known barrister and occasional public speaker.
Peter I took 7-1 at Ladbrokes - Bet Fred was only 6’s and Betfair 7.6 (6.6/1)!!!
You didnt mention each way last time.
I have tickets for the second day at Melbourne - should last that long , shouldn’t it!
55- Richard- honestly reading this site one would think that Labour are some maligned, sub deviant, hated, party, a bit like a combination of the bad bits of the BNP and the SWP.
I seem to remember them winning an election recently, and only a few % behind in recent opinion polls (following a year of extraordinary favourable press to the opposition leader).
What is most remarkable about Labour is its sheer resilience in a climate that is becoming increasingly hostile to all types of politicians.
The cash-from-councillors “scandal” is pretty lame, but there is one serious point to be made.
The setting of allowances is not terribly transparet and does not appear to be based on any national standards. There is at best a sort of benchmarking based on what other authorities have already gotten away with - a technique much decried by the Left when operated in the boardrooms of the City.
It isn’t clear that there is anything to stop the ruling Labour Group on any authority from inflating allowances at will, to offset the 15% party levy and leave its own councillors no worse off.
Strangely, no local campaigner, no matter how vocal on Council Tax levels, ever stands on a “Lower Allowances” ticket…
65 - And roger, whilst surrounded by all those who have cottoned on to labour’s deep financial troubles, shouts ‘look over there’, pointing his finger dramatically into thin air, hoping that it will give him the chance to run away……..
70. I seem to remember ‘Richard’ was a Labour Party member. Maybe a different one?
OT — talking of Cherie, why isn’t the Prime Minister a QC? Have they got rid of the convention whereby barristers elected to parliament take silk? Since my entire legal training comes from watching Rumpole a couple of decades back, I am confused on this matter.
Roger at 65, are you joining our little group, who suspect that the next General Election will result in a Grand co-alition, with the Lib Dems as the main opposition.
71 - We have an independent review panel that annually recommends the levels for allowances. Don’t other Authorities? Mine is a Surrey District Council, population around 120,000, and the basic allowance is £4,400 with a further £4,100 for Executive members and Scruting Community Chairmen.
76 - Oops, the last line should read Scrutiny Committee….
UKPaul. If the Tory’s hopes are hanging on Labour’s bankruptcy I think you might be disappointed! Why not try looking for a few well thought out policies and then you might not have to humiliate yourselves clutching at straws!
76 - I don’t know what scruting is, but it sounds rather too racy for deepest Surrey
79, -
Indeed. Be very very afraid.
78 - You may have missed a lot of the recent pronouncements roger in your desperate attempts to keep the good ship ‘new labour’ afloat.
Chief among them I’ve been impresed by Nick Clegg’s higher profile, the concept of ten laws which need to be repealed is the perfect anti-statist message that the electorate need to be given the choice of. the contrast with him and the bullying Reid couldn’t make the choice the voter’s face any clearer.
69 Icarus
I don’t generally specify each way. It’s down to personal choice. (There’s a lot I could say about this but not now!)
I took 6-1 yesterday and am surprised at the drift. If it continues, I’ll bet again later.
‘impressed’ not ‘impresed’ and the with a capital ‘T’ (damn keyboard…….)
72roger, whilst surrounded by all those who have cottoned on to labour’s deep financial troubles, shouts ‘look over there’, pointing his finger dramatically into thin air, hoping that it will give him the chance to run away……..
That’s Labour’s main policy.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1875293,00.html
The link is in case you missed it, do you disagree with anything he said?
Okay it was a couple of months ago but, at this stage in the electoral cycle, only an idiot would set out their next manifesto now.
Dave at 75. Good idea! Labour could supply the ideas and the policy and Dave’s Tory’s could concentrate on perfecting the ideal outfit for cycling round Parliament Square.
74 - The convention was that barristers shouldn’t seek a parliamentary career until they received silk: any earlier, for serious barristers, would mean they were jumping the gun a bit. Nowadays, most barristers/politicos aren’t prepared to wait: Paul Boateng (I think) and Edward Garnier took silk after their election to Parliament, but, unlike Blair, they still practised.
Come on roger, you wanted a well thought out policy and I’ve given you one. The least you can do is agree with it or explain why you don’t. Just what have labour done in the last few months that is going to radically improve our lives then?
[51] Paul McLain wrote I don’t even grumble about buying the obligatory raffle tickets at all the respective events, (although I do object to winning them) - presumably because he has to hand the winnings back to the Party - at least that’s what I felt I had to do when it happened to me - or is Paul objecting to having to lug all those Jeffrey Archer novels round to the charity shop?
[53] Payroll donations are now commonplace in local government - why is it O.K. for a councillor to arrange one for a charity but not for his/her political party? Even if it were banned, they’d only set up P.A.C.s on the American model… and can those hysterical folk who claim that there is some tax evasion involved produce one shred of evidence, please?
[54] I thought the parties spent about £50m on the last election between them, not billions - about the price of a good mug of latte for each vote cast…
[61]
:lol:
[76] I don’t see why your Council shouldn’t form a Scruting Committee, John - if they had a suitable uniform its meetings might well boost local tourism…
As always with Clegg he’s difficult to pin down. A man of the soundbite! He complains about 3000 new laws brought in by the Home Office but doesn’t name one that he would repeal. He says he’ll set up a website so people can say which ones they want scrapping. Very Lib Dem!!
I happen to have no confidence in his liberal credentials anyway after his tirade against foreign ‘murderers rapists and burglers’ being let out into the community after they have served their sentence.
Does he also object to home grown ‘murderers rapists and burglers’ being let out into the community after they have served their sentences or is it just foreigners?
When Gyles Brandreth became the candidate for Chester, he was warned by Sir Peter Morrison to be prepared to spend 3k p.a. on raffles and auctions.
90.” A man of the soundbite! He complains about 3000 new laws brought in by the Home Office but doesn’t name one that he would repeal”
I think he named 10 (I think a couple weren’t Labour product though).
Michael Stone has been charged with attempting to murder Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness
90 - Put Clegg against Reid and I think it’s patently clear who is the most liberal! The real problem that any lib dem speaking about home affairs has is the Murdoch-ite worldview propagated via his media outlets. Unfortunately scaring people is much easier than doing something constructive.
Gotcha -
http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/the-freedom-bill.html#topten
1. Restrictions on protests in Parliament Square
Sections 132 to 138; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
2. Identity Cards
Identity Cards Act 2006
3. Extradition to the US
Part 2, Extradition Act 2003
4. Conditions on public assemblies
Section 57, Clause 123, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
5. Criminalising trespass
Sections 128 to 131, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
6. Control orders
Section 1, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
7. DNA retention
Sections 78-84, Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Sections 9-10, Criminal Justice Act 2003
8. Public interest defence for whistleblowing
Official Secrets Act 1989
9. Right to silence
Sections 34-39, Public Order Act 1994 - England and Wales
10. Hearsay evidence
Sections 114-136, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Eight labour laws, two tory ones.
40 - Roger.
It is not surprising that parties want working peers that are supportive of the party in parliament. Therefore we should not be surprised if parties select disproportionately from amongst their supporters those whom they seek to elevate to the House of Lords. In that sense I do not necessarily see an anomaly in the statistic that 50% of business honours went to business leaders who supported the Tories under Thatcher.
There is a clear distinction however if money is donated to a party purely with the intention of procuring an honour, and that the promise of an honour is explicit and made in advance of the donation.
That seems to be what Inspector Knacker is currently getting excited about. If (as we suspect) Blair has moved past the threshold of elevating party supporters who happen also to be donors, to a position where he is rewarding people for donating, then he deserves the opprobrium that is coming.
70 Tyson It simply proves true the Lincoln adage that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. And Nulab have tried and are still trying.
But to mix stories, once the crowd see that the Emperor is not dressed in startling new clothes, but is naked, the lovefest quickly turns to loathing.
Peter the Punter, or anyone else - how can I follow the Newbury 14.40 online?
Thanks
Nulabour should be in liquidation by now
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6182592.stm
When did we become a third world nation?
98.
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE
its the government interfering in peoples lifes again under the usual “but its for your benefit agenda!
To me this looks like a test run for a voucher scheme for the unemployed
Here’s a story in todays DM which should have very important bearing on the inflation figures.
Some of the rise is said to be caused by fuel costs, so this could be the secondary round effects coming through.
QUOTE
The cost of staples such as bread and meat, has increased sharply, while many winter vegetables and fruit have gone up 20 to 30 per cent, with some doubling.
The rises, which other supermarkets are likely to follow if they haven’t already, could well add more than £10 – around 10 per cent - to the cost of a normal family shop.
Daily Mail
When will the electorate see through New Labour and throw them out?????????
98 > There’s been a program like this since the Second World War; however, the recipients of aid under the scheme are generally amongst the least vociferous in society.
If memory serves me rightly one of the more serious news programmes (Newsnight?) this week was looking the change in the levels of Poverty in the UK since 1997 (probably in response to the Toynbee / Tory link up). Taking the Government’s own Poverty Line definition of being 60% of the average family income, nearly 1 million people have escaped poverty. However, if you were to look at the numbers of people below 40% of the average family income, that has actually increased by 1 million since 1997. It seems that whilst on the whole the number of people defined as being in poverty is getting smaller; the seriously poor are actually getting poorer. Time to look again at Tax Credits?
It can’t happen quickly enough that the new labour shysters go broke!
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6179624.stm
This government are a bunch of dirty lying b@stards. They haven’t the integrity to raise taxes again so they’re going to try and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. This pensions reform thing is such a scam. They’re so desperate for cash now they’ll go to unbelieable lengths.
Anyone can promise something beyond their own lifetime in exchange for money now.
Dirty bastards. This particular case is just one example. The reality is nationwide corporate and public. The pensions deficit that is opening up is going to climax into something un managable. The solution will not be one of design but of default.
The final outcome will be a dramatic reduction in life expectancy (and lots of inflation for as long as the government tries to pretend everything is okay
99: You feel it’s is ABSOLUTE DISGRACE (please don’t shout) and interference in people’s lives to offer pregnant women on low incomes help in eating healthily? They don’t actually have to accept, you know. What’s your problem with it? You too, blue2win - what’s it got to do with becoming a third world nation? Sometimes my problem with some of the Tories here is not that I think they’re wrong, but that it’s impossible to work out what they’re on about.
kjh/Steven Whaley: The precise position is that councillors are asked by the party to have a contribution made as a deduction from their pay: the councillor has to make the instruction himself or herself. This is, as andrea says, seen as a reasonable contribution in return for help in getting elected in the first place. The councillors are of course entitled to refuse on the basis that this wasn’t their understanding when they stood, and to decline to stand for the party again next time. If the issue is simply whether the councillor asks the council to deduct it or his bank, I don’t have any strong views and don’t see it as a big deal.
The Tory ‘allowance pooling’ at Westminster is in fact more controversial, but it’s also been ruled kosher if it’s done right. This is, unlike the council issue, not about pay but about expense allowances which MPs have for staff to help them in their work. The Tories ask all their MPs to divert a proportion (10%, I believe) of this into a central fund which is used to pay Central Office researchers, who in return will advise the MPs. It’s controversial because, unlike pay, the taxpayer-funded allowances are designed to be used for non-partisan purposes. However, so long as the researchers are scrupulous about only doing non-partisan research for the MPs (e.g. helping them compare council tax rates in different boroughs), it’s permitted under Commons rules, even if the MP later uses the information for partisan purposes. Since most MPs employ party members as staff and these do research on an individual basis, the Commons authorities feel it’s essentially the same thing, and they’re probably correct.
101: hello Broxtowe voter - do get in touch if we’re not already corresdonding: NickMP1@aol.com.
104 > there’s a note winging its way to your inbox.
103 nick Palmer What exactly am I supposed to have done to be included in your rant? Just a passing Tory to attack perhaps?
Not that I mind. I am used to it, after all. But you, on the other hand, seem rather fraught.
Nick Palmer While you are around can you tell me what your future leader meant in Scotland when, as the the BBC reports,
Speaking at the conference, the chancellor said Labour had to “expose” what its opponents “are up to”.
He said: “The Conservatives don’t care about the union and about Britain. They are fighting a policy of English votes for English laws.
Does this mean he thinks that equitable devolved arrangement in England are off his agenda and that he is quite happy with the situation as it is, iniquitous as it is? Or has he misunderstood the tory position.
Keep on Clunking, O Fist.
The multiple identity crazies are out again agreeing with themselves…..
Just listened to ‘Any Questions’ and I have to say Matthew Taylor is a very impressive politician. He’s been so much out of the limelight I’d forgotten how good he was. He is what I would describe as a REAL liberal. Far more impressive than the populist Clegg (Incidentally I don’t agree with repealing several of those acts). Anyone know why he didn’t stand for the leadership. I’d have been tempted to switch with him in charge.
Theresa Villiers who I haven’t come accross before was awful. Even the Sussex audience couldn’t make sense of her. If Cameron thinks his idea of appealing to left and right at the same time is working he should have been listening this lunchtime! They were laughing at him!
Sorry, b2W - mixed you up with herbert proper!
108.”Anyone know why he didn’t stand for the leadership. I’d have been tempted to switch with him in charge.”
He stood as deputy and lost to Vince Cable (the selectorate was the parliamentary party).
Now I think he’s shadowing Hilary Armstrong.
Interesting discussion on the councilors allowance issue.
I appreaciate it is in real terms a small point but it would give the public far more confidence in the system if they got their whole allowances from the council and then paid out if they wished from their bank accounts.
Needless to say I have more comment on my blog.
Politicians of all parties need to remember how these things can look, and should strive to look as clean as possible leaving as little room for allegations of bad conduct.
Thanks Andrea. I suppose Vince Cable was Ming’s choice but I think they’ve made a mistake. The Liberals were always able to take the moral high ground without fear of consequences. It was nice to be reminded how good it sounds when a politician does this. The audience appreciated it too. Poor Theresa Villiers. Not knowing what her policy was made her sound ridiculous.
Nick Palmer Maalesh. But to mix me up with someone else is, well, not on.
Any enlightenment on the Scottish clanger by Clunking Fist out of GBH.
112. Roger, it was a close race. First round result was: Taylor 25, Cable 21, Heath 17.
Round 2: Cable 31, Taylor 29
Ptp - Thanks!
Roger, yes lots of sock-puppets trumpetting on the list today…
Nick P, we agree for the first time in a while: the Tory “expenses pooling” is indeed more controversial. Diverting expenses is obviously more dubious than diverting salary (unless the salary is diverted before NI, etc). I think what is getting up some people’s noses is the mandatory nature of the levy, and that disciplinary action followed smartly. It is draconian, no doubt - but that is the Labour Party for you.
Taylor was the “next big thing” once, when he was the youngest MP. But his star rose and fell. He can probably make it back up there, but recently he seems content to get on with things. Personally I think he has a bit of a lack of charisma.
115 Very welcome…and I hope other PBers were on it too.
With all due respect, which isn’t much at all, Nick Palmer always has to change the subject and do a lot of finger-pointing. No it’s never New Labour’s fault. The bloodbath in Iraq and the London Bombings was nothing to do with Pompous Palmer’s policies. Runaway violent crime, drugs and drink abuse is nothing to do with them either.
The mood of the nation has changed since the general election, as it has in America, and the strength of feeling and the anger against New Labour is not something his weasle words can address.
Scam after scam is coming to light to expose this shower for what they are. The only consolation Mr Palmer will have when his dirty money doesn’t save him in the next election is that MPs have made sure they have the best pension scheme in the country, while the rest of us have had our pensions raided by Gordon Brown.
118. As a long time lurker and occassional poster, I don’t think that Nick Palmer is at all pompous.
I’m no longer a supporter of New Labour, but I think his defence here of government policy is generally honest and straight-forward.
RE 119, Further more James what do people expect him to do? This place is mostly about betting on politics rather than rants about it as well. (Though I must confess to being an occaisional sinner on that one
)
117. Thanks Ptp!
120. Rough estimation I would say rants outnumber betting-related posts at least 5-1.
Tesco
Last month and this month.
Cox apples 99p £1-48p
Parsnips 99p £1-88p
Cabbage 45p 58p
Cauliflower 64p 88p
Carrots 74p £1-48p
Sprouts 74p £1-49p
Bacon 60p 72p
Sausages £2-09p £2-12p.
Beef £10-48p £12-49p
Turkey £2-98p £3-98p
Lamb £12-98p £13-98p
Weetabix £1-50p £2-18p
Special K £2-00p £2-57p
Conflakes £2-00p £2-58p
Bread 48p 54p
Cheese £1-29p £1-77p
Spaggy 99p £1-49p
Coffee £1-32p £2-64p
etc etc etc.
Inflation, what inflation.
100. On inflation in food prices - this has been going on for some time - the DM story isn’t ‘news’. For example, in the year to October the food and non-alcoholic beverages component of the CPI rose by 4.7% (way ahead of overall inflation). A part of this is no doubt due to the rising cost of energy - both for transportation, but also for things like refridgeration. Bringing food and drink to market is a reasonably energy-intensive process.
There is unlikely to be a ’sudden’ increase in inflation because of of food prices, for the simple reason this effect is already substantively in the figures. If anything, it might work the other way going forward, given that fuel prices have actually fallen over the last couple of months or so.
I have to say in NIck P’s defence that I have always found him a decent and approachable individual. He is in a difficult position in having to defend an unpopular govt but he does it with gusto (and I suspect) genuine belief.
He should not be mocked and attacked just for defending his own party!
haven’t had time to read but surprised that a search found no reference to JK Rowling on this thread?
RE 121, Fred, 5 to 1? Of *cough* my posts or the site in general?
Re Inflation I suspect we will have to see how that pans out over months. As has been pointed at out 123 by Economist high enerygy prices may have driven that and they are now comming down.
RE 125 Martin, why should there be any mention of JK Rowling?
Re 35. Great tip. Just picked up a roll of twenties from William Hill.
RE 127 Mike, and PTP, Well done. Is that the next PB party funded then?
127 Well done, Mike! I’m always wary of giving out straight tips here but when I do and they come in, it is very gratifying.
126. The site in general! actually I think 5-1 was an underestimate of the true rant-betting ratio.
128. Well, I offered to contribute £50 towards it. I’ll make it £100 now.
130. It varies enormously though, Fred, according to how active the betting markets are. Close to a GE, the ratio probably reverses to 5-1 betting/rants.
Interesting article - the Social Democrats in Sweden were recently criticised for a nearly identical system of making councillors pay part of their allowances to the party. Perhaps this inspired the Labour move? It did come across rather negatively in the newspaper I read at the time (it was this summer, I think), especially because Sweden has a generous system of state and local funding for political parties. Also, the Social Democrats are not usually considered to have problems in finding money; someone calculated that the support given to the Social Democrats in the election of 2002 by LO (the Swedish equivalent of the TUC) was eight times as much per citizen than George W. Bush’s war chest in the 2004 American presidential election. Will the reaction be more understanding in Britain given Labour’s precarious finances, or will people be angry that the party is taking allowances that are meant to cover councillors’ expenses, not the party’s?
All this digging at bankrupt Labour seems to miss the main point. It is the moral and political bankrupcy of the ‘new’ Labour Party which has led to the financial troubles. Not only the haemmorhage of membership subscriptions but also the extra cost of the activity which those members used to do (often for MPs with whom they had quite profound political differences) which the party bosses feel has to be replaced by ‘paid for’ stuff. Labour feels it needs even more ‘paid for’ stuff than it used to because there are a number of constituencies where they have MPs but few if any councillors and a pathetic local party which does next-to-nothing either. Accordingly they flood these constituencies with external mailshots both before and during election times - being careful not to mention their MP candidate by name, since this makes this kind of activity ‘legal’ (off election expenses) which it wasn’t under the old election laws. The MP then also breaks the parliamentary rules about unsolicited mass mailings to constituents because (s)he knows full well (s)he will get away with it scot-free.
Then, of course, there are the the extra billboards that are paid for centrally which just happen to be in target constituencies. Both Labour and Tories have upped the ante with this billboard stuff over the years and the Lib Dems copied them last time to some extent because their ‘big donor’ insisted on it.
The bottom line is that in financial terms the worst off party by far is the Blue to$$ers, with multi-million loans which may well be sourced outside the country, whoever is ‘officially’ fronting them. Who knows, either, how much they owe to the likes of the amazing Shirly Porter, who is still leading a charmed existence in this country having paid back a ‘negotiated’ multi-million sum vastly in excess of what she told the courts she possessed. Apparently, Westminster Council are refusing to supply the police with financial information as part of the ‘deal’ they did with Tesco Shirl about non-disclosure. Funny old world when criminal investigations are stymied by civil contracts, but at least there has been no Polonioum involved as yet - just old poloney!
It ties in with the comments on my article of yesterday. Obviously, if Labour councillors are having to pay over 10% of their allowances to the Party nationally, it says much for the state of Labour’s finances but it’s not corrupt per se.
In Hertsmere, we’re on the point of reaching an agreement with councillors where they’ll pay £10 a month to the association, out of their allowances - and an