Who wins - who loses from the party funding report?
March 15th, 2007
-
But will the main parties come to a deal?
Sir Hayden Phillips’ report on party funding is at last out and leaves a lot of questions to be resolved. The big issue is whether the parties themselves can agree to spending limits on specifix campaigns and caps on individual donations.
The challenge is that each of the parites comes at this from a different stand-point. The Tories have now wiped off their debts and by all reports are fundraising very effectively under their new leader. The last thing they want is to be constrained by excessive spending limits.
Labour, meanwhile, has the issue with the unions to be resolved because at the moment they provide the lion’s share of its revenue. How will the proposed caps on single donations affect that?
-
Perhaps the most controversial proposal is that the state should provide support - either linked to how many votes the party got at the last election or in the form of matched amount for individual donations.
My guess is the hope that the parties can agree on the outstanding points by July is wildly optimistic and this one will run and run.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
“Perhaps the most controversial proposal is that the state should provide support - either linked to how many votes the party got at the last election or in the form of matched amount for individual donations. ”
Well, the average voter will certainly not be a winner if that one goes through.
Labour would be foolish not to impose limits on constituency spending (while exempting spending by sitting MPs.)
The idea of the state matching individual donations is completely stupid. That would actually enhance the power of individual donors as it would mean they were each donating twice as much (but without them having to pay the cost)!
Isn’t a good way out of the union problem to say that on each year’s payment fee form each union member has the option of donating an amount of their choice to the Labour Party, on top of the membership fee. The same could be done for all sorts of organisations. Thus much money would still come in, but the union leaders wouldn’t have as much of a stranglehold over the party.
Well, Mike, I can’t see any agreement on this.
Firstly the problem for Labour is that no one wants to give them money any more. So they have a funding gap.
The Conservatives don’t have this problem.
The reason for the debate in the first place was the question of money buying influnece, but Labour need the big unions cash.
To many things to argue about.
Then there is the issue of capping spending between elections in constituencies. This is a problem for Labour as they simply do not have the cash. Sitting MP’s get to spend lots of tax payers money building an incumbancy, so banning people overcomming that can be used to make Labour look bad.
Lastly there is no appetite for state funding. The tax payer will not like it.
2 - union members already have to opt into a political fund. This would be disastrous for Labour and the principle of many people who are not wealthy funding a party to compete with the one funded by a small number of wealthy individuals.
I would like them to allow political parties to be able to reclaim taxes on individual donations, just like charities do. I am not saying that political parties should become charities - just that the token generosity of the state would then encourage parties to raise more cash from more people, thus getting more people involved in the political process.
5. Schade. Amusing isn’t it, that Labour are now being panicked into proposing Lords ‘reform’ and party funding ‘reform’ due to disquiet over their corrupt practices? Even more amusing that opening the door to changes in these areas actually risks damaging their interests even further. Down, down, deeper and down…
7. Ho Hum. Well the status quo wasn’t an option was it ??
5 actually you have to OPT OUT of the political fund. laziness means that many people, including me, can’t be bothered with the paperwork, so I am helping fund both the Labour party and the Conservative party.
There can’t be a deal because the Labour party can’t give up the union money and more state funding is a non-starter for too many tories (including me).
the state should provide support - …linked to how many votes the party got at the last election
No incentive to stuff ballot boxes with stolen postal votes there then!
Any delay will undoubtedly assist Lord Ashcroft’s 18th century style constituency purchasing programme.
9. I thought you had said you were a teacher kingbonkers? None of the teaching unions are affiliated to the Labour Party.
11. Correct - no incentive for the Cons to get a deal. Anyone got any stats on union membership ? Is it not falling consistently ?
Why employers don’t profile candidates to root out potential union members is beyond me..
11. Effectively abolishing the secret ballot and creating false electors via expansion of ‘postal voting’ is surely far more reminiscent of the activities of borough-mongers of the past.
13 It is falling slowly
http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation/trade-union-statisitcs/page10928.html
Also the mix is shifting and I belive an increasing proportion of Union members are in the public sector. The biggest union is UNISON
11. How much funding does the incumbent MP receive to help them connect with their constituents?
The incentive for the Tories to do a deal is that it will produce a compromise (the incentive for Labour to offer one is that bipartisan agreement is clearly preferable for something like this). But failing a comporomise, as Sean Fear observes, we’d be stupid not to do something unilaterally and allow the Tories to purchase the next election.
I agree with Benedict that we need to be careful about incumbent benefits too, but this is not a satisfactory trade-off, first because MPs’ newsletters are scrutinised for political propaganda and Tory leaflets are not, and second because, unless one thinks Labour will be permanently in office, there would be periods where the Tories had *both* the private funding advantage and the incumbent advantage.
The Conservatives need to spend as much as they can at constituency level before any new legislation kicks in.
17. The implied threat in that post that unless there is an agreement Labour will move to rig the current funding rules more in favour of themselves ahead of the GE is pretty desperate stuff…and unlikely to frighten the Tory high command or indeed anyone else methinks.
Labour would love a deal around incumbancy - the £7,000 communications budget would be a small sacrifice to stop the £50,000+ a year the Tories are spending in key marginals.
Re 17, Nick, are you saying that what an MP sends out is vetted before hand? If so by whom?
And if not how many have been censured for over stepping the mark?
Meanwhile a small update on cash for peerages, Yates letter to the Public Affairs Select Committee here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
21. Yes, it looks like the excellent Yates is planning to bring the whole thing to a crescendo just before the local/Welsh/Scottish elections. Excellent - revenge for McPherson and other slights at last.
17 If Labour decide on unilateral action they had better be very sure of winning the next election - otherwise there is no basis for the incoming adminisration to seek any cross party support to radically changing party funding.
The next election isn’t going to be “purchased” - yes good organisation and funding make a difference in getting the vote out in marginals but if Labour do badly it isn’t because of that it’s because the voters want them out or don’t care enough to come out and vote for them.
Personally, I am totally opposed to state funding for parties. I also tend to think that there is a case for no funding limits, except from overseas sources, which should be banned. However every donation should be public. Spending is capped at constituency and at national level, and although the loopholes are wide enough to drive a bus through, a gentle revision here would be as much as I think is required.
State funding could lead to zombie parties- and be a major barrier to entry to new parties. I think setting our party politics in concrete would erode political discourse in this country even further- it is a dangerous step that should be opposed on principle.
Nick at 17 makes the obvious point. Although the big decisions (Iraq, etc) tend to go through the House of Commons with tory support, it clearly is possible to get a majority without them on something like this.
OT - and in the best tradition of equidistance - here is a poll on Labour’s most shaming issue
http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2007/03/nulabour-s-hall-of-shame#comment-2328
24. Haven’t we already got one party led by a zombie, or at least some one who looks rather like one?
26 This morning it was Cameron’s school. this afternoon his looks. Give the poor man a break!
5. As far as I’m aware, the problem lies with the fact that every member pays the same fee and the amount of the donation is set centrally. This means that 50% of the members agreeing to a twenty pound donation (that comes out of everyone’s pocket) is the same as 100% of the members having to pay ten pounds.
NuLab are dead in the water. Straw confirmed today that the union cash was not up for negotiation. more interesting was not one tory mp asked a question, not one took the obvious route of shaming straw, in fact hardly a single tory mp was in the chamber. why no tory questions and just a series of friendly lobs from the labour benches?
In addition, Sir Hayden suggests an internet-based system for parties to attract subscribing “supporters”, who would pay £5 which would be matched by the same amount from public funds - up to a cap of £5m.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2034698,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11
I found this bit interesting. How would they verify people have signed up? Would they want a list of names? Sounds a bit ‘big brother’ for my liking.
BB
Labour can’t act unilaterally on this.
They need a deal with the Lib Dems for the Lords. They have to decide how much they want to be facing Ashcroft money.
GB into 1.25 on betfair - lowest for a while..
pregethwr Presumably the LDs will be delighted to agree on very tough spending limits on election campaigns as well as new spending limits on constituency spending well before elections. Ashcroft used the absence of the latter to great effect last time. I have no doubt Labour will ram through changes with LD help whether the Tories like it or not although there will, of course, be an initial period of consultation.
33. Have to get through the Lords too, remember. Imagine trying to use the Parliament Act on something as partisan as this…’Lords block Labour attempt to rig election rules’…sounds great, eh?
If state funding is inevitable (it is) lets make sure we the voters have a say. On the ballot paper a simple question do you wish a donation say £2.00 to go to the party of your choice yea or nay. The money when granted would not go directly to the political party, it would go to OfPol. the The Office of political party funding, which would act like a bank for the parties. Parties would set up direct debits with Ofpol, to pay for day-to-day expenses etc. all would have to be accounted for, bills, invoices etc. All other donations would also have to go via Ofpol where they would be vetted before placing in the parties accounts. Before any political party can receive any state funding, they must register an acceptable constitution. The first line of that constitution must be,’Membership is open to any British Citizen domiciled in the UK, regardless of race, creed or colour’. The second line, must be a full committment to the democratic process and the parliamentary system etc.Ofpol would publish annual accounts showing all ins and outs, there would be no anonymity.
steve at 29: hate to disillusion you, but most opposition MPs, many of whom do have other interests, are very selective about what debates they bother to attend (voting records don’t tell the story). I’ve often been to debates where there were no Tories or LibDems present at all, including one on European immigration policy, which you’d have thought the Tories would be quite interested in!
benedict at 21: Yes, if you want a newsletter or whatever to be funded by Parliament’s allowance, you need to have it vetted by the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms. The basic rule is that every item must refer to you, and no item can promote or denigrate a political party. So it’s fine to say “Nick Palmer made a speech welcoming the new funding for statins”, since this is describing the MP’s activity, but doubly not OK to say “Labour in exciting statins breakthrough”, since it boosts a party and therre is no obvious connection with the MP. They don’t publish statistics on how often they accept or reject material, and often they will simply suggest that a particular paragraph be amended. However, I had an entire newsletter rejected before I got the hang of what they wanted (I was keen *not* to stuff it with things about me, so it had lots of policy discussion which all failed the first test), and the MP for Westminster had to repay the entire cost of a mailing to every household because it criticised the Government’s immigration policy.
I don’t think the rule is ideal, honestly, since it makes every MP’s newsletter look like a self-indulgent parade of the MP’s real or imagined virtues. Who cares if I’ve opened a bazaar except for the people who were there and already know about it? Who needs a photo of me doing it? Conversely, why shouldn’t I discuss pensions policy or the arrival of Tesco in Beeston? I would quite like a change freeing us from the “MP link” rule (while retaining the ‘no overt propaganda’ rule) and allowing the runner-up at the previous election a one-page insert stating his or her views on things (with the same restrictions - no propaganda). That would encourage both sides in each constituency to send out some meaningful and not obviously partisan material.
coldstone - your final suggestions show you don’t understand the democratic process. Why not add in full commitment to the 60% CO2 eduction, or support of the monarchy or the inviolability of the United Kingdom or etc.
and yes lets have another quango, why not.
Tonight on Question Time:
Mike O’Brien
Priti Patel
Lembit Opik
Clare Short
Peter Hitchens
37
I’m open to all suggestions: well nearly all!!!!
Coldstone’s Ofpol [35] might actually solve the “buying influence (or peerages)” problem. If all donations, however large, had to go through Ofpol which only announced (say) annually how much each party got, then the parties could never be sure that Mr X had actually made the million pound donation he promised, since all the party would see is a £15 million (say) aggregate amount.
Corporate donations would still be traceable but they are less likely to lead to corruption.
Thank god they’re thinking about banning big donations at last. It’s so bad for politics that individuals are suspected of getting favours for their donations. And it does seem a little unlikely that major donors so often happen to be just the people we need in the House of Lords. Anyway, rich people shouldn’t get more influence on politics than everyone else.
There is a serious issue about giving the power to alter state party funding to the government. It needs to be some kind of arms’ length body that decides that and has considerable autonomy from ministers, despite making spending decisions.
Why can’t the unions just delegate political donations to geographically smaller areas? E.g. if they used to donate 2 million, then just organise a ballot on donations for regions 40 times or more smaller, e.g. boroughs and counties? Some will say no, but that’s fine.
‘corporate donations … are less likely to lead to corruption’ indeed! What planet are you on?
Naughty, naughty Nick. You don’t have to be in the chamber to follow what is going on, do you? Division bells, closed circuit screens and all, let alone Hansard and parliament TV.
Indeed it is only the great occasions where you will find the chamber full, PMQs and resignations being favourite, although the trident debate division results filled the seats - but not the government lobbies.
There are plenty of opportunities to play ‘ hunt the missing MPs’ on the government benches.
Your posts this week increasingly have an undertone of desperation to find something to damage the Tory advance.
Nick the idea of giving the runner up a slot in your newsletter is fantastic. I’ve been thinking there ought to be a bit of funding for the second placed party in every constituency - not much, maybe £2000 a year, tiny compared to the winner. It would be a difficult sell to the public (’now they want to pay themselves even when they lose’), but it would at least mean that every MP had someone up against them who could pay their printing costs, or save up for a Parliament and have a part-time organiser for the last year. It would make a world of difference in safe seats, getting someone off the ground to provide some decent opposition. And of course it would mostly benefit the big two or three, occasionally an independent or minor party would be able to get itself off the ground, also good for political competition. The downside is of course it would make it a bit easier for 2nd parties to stay second.
Gavin @ 41 — well, it depends what you mean by corruption. Companies or unions may believe their interests are better served by one particular party but that is a different matter.
re 36, Nick Palmer, fair enough. That said the current method of operation does help the incumbent even if it makes you look like a self obsessed narcissist! (Not that I am suggesting you are)
22. Is it just possible that the Police are dragging their feet a little to allow Blair time to leave office before charges are pressed? Have they got an eye on factors such as once charges are pressed those arraigned may start “singing”, implicating TB? The Met may prefer not to tarnish the office of a sitting PM…
As to Cameron’s wandering parting, wouldn’t it depend where his crown (or coronet) was? If his crown is not in the correct place the parting would flal out unless held in place by stiff hair (snake?) oil.
RodCrosby @ 46 — or they might believe witnesses will feel easier to speak once those implicated (not just the PM but also those who work for him) are no longer in power.
36 - Oh dear Nick, you really shouldn’t have got on to the dodgy ground of who attends debates in the House of Commons. Last Monday, in a debate on NHS deficits one (yes one!) Labour MP was on hand to defend the Labour Government’s record and a few weeks ago on the subject of hospital acquired infections - not one Labour backbench MP spoke on the matter (a first, so the Whips told me).
It demonstrates 2 things:
1) The fundamental arrogant disdain that the Labour Party has for Parliament ( as a result of 10 years of the Blair/Brown spin mania) and
2) Labour is unwilling to try to defend its abysmal record on the NHS any longer.
Finally Nick, you know full well that MPs do lots of other things apart from being in the Chamber, so that perpetuating the myth that MPs are slacking because they’re not there, in order to score a silly partisan point, is unbecoming of you, if I might say?
36 Nick Palmer If you were an MP in a constituency like Dagenham or Barking, there is fair chance you would have to hand over a page of your newsletter to the BNP candidate and have them express their views on things. And then have the taxpayer pay for it. Are you sure about this ?
34 With LD support they can get spending controls through the Lords. I’m not sure the public will be that impressed with those peers arguing on behalf of the sacred right of Parties to spend money on double paged advertising spreads and poster campaigns.
could the tories against state funding tell me whether they believe their party should give back the approximately FIFTY MILLION it has received from the taxpayer over the last 10 years?
personally i believe in state funding. i don’t like my taxes going to tories, but i don’t like my taxes going on a host of other things. that’s life and it’s being part of civic society. the sums of money involved are tiny in the grand scheme of things anyway.
i like the link between labour and the unions, but personally would be happy with a £50,000 limit if it cleans up politics.
Latest TNS SOFRES poll for Le Figaro magazine. This compares with the previous poll done for the magazine last month.
Sarko 27 (-6)
Sego 25.5 (-0.5)
Bayrou23 (+9)
Second round Sarko beats Sego 52 to 48.
This shows graphically the Bayrou surge. He started by taking a lot of votes from Sego who slumped from the low thirties to the mid twenties. Latterly he’s taken more votes from Sarko who’s slumped slightly less than Sego to the upper twenties. Bayrou is in the low twenties himself; tantalisingly short of the second round but only just. The first round takes place on April 22 so he has plenty of time to make the final break through. Surveys took place between March 8-9 so it isn’t bang up to date but Bayrou’s rise is backed up by evidence on the ground. A few days ago he went to a deprived suburb and attacked Sarkozy by implication. The three revolutionary watch words were all important, he said, but the most important was ‘fraternite’. He had a well publicised triumph on what should have been Sego’s turf. His support is less solid than for the other two although getting less so. His main weakness; how would he put together a majority? He simply asserts that politicians from Left and Right would come together in the wake of his victory; not a very credible answer.
oops - typo - FIFTY should read FIVE…haha. sorry.
Nick Palmer has spoken in 15 debates this year (below average among MPs)
Stewart Jackson has spoken in 59 debates this year (above average among MPs)
53 - I’ve asked this before, but do people really believe the French polls? I find it very difficult to believe that the three leading candidates are going to poll in the low to high twenties - it’ll mean a hell of a lot of people treating the first round very differently to 2002.
In Germany each party gets a sum dependant upon the number of votes it won at the previous Federal election. It works out at approximately 10p per vote.
I am opposed to any state funding of parties (as opposed to individual MPs) as once again it gives the parties more power than they deserve under our system. Since I am still old fashioned enough to believe in the original ideal of constituency based Parliamentary system (pre the Irish Nationalists introduction of the whips system in the 1890s) I would want us to be looking at ways of reducing the influence of the parties not increasing it.
Personally I would have thought a system that pays monies directly to MPs rather than parties is far better. They would then have the choice of giving up some of those monies to the party of their choice for centralised campaigning. But always the emphasis should lie with the constituency representative, not with the party.
Tricks
Alex if you’ll recall last time Le Pen unexpectedly (to some people) made the second round. The second round was therefore no contest at all because furious Leftist voters had to hold their noses and vote for Chirac. Both the two main Parties hammered the argument for a vote utile to avoid a repeat this time. Hence although there are a proliferation of smaller candidates this time just like last time, french voters appear to be far less inclined to amuse themselves in the first round. It’s quite possible that only four candidates will get above 2%. Le Pen is guaranteed around 15% but will struggle to get 20%. Bayrou, on the other hand, only got 7% as a moderate right wing candidate last time. This time he’s moved to the Left and has profited handsomely from a poor campaign by Sego, who has struggled to distinguish herself ideologically from Bayrou ( she has run on the right wing of her Party, he to the left of where he used to stand). Sarko has also left ground vacant to his left for Bayrou to explot. No one doubts Sarko’s energy and capacity to do the job but some are concerned by his perceived divisiveness. His recent call for immigrants to embrace the french language and french values to protect the national identity seems to have lost him some votes to Bayrou while firming up his own base( thus garding against a last minute surge to Le Pen and probably making more likely a large switch of Front National voters to his cause in the second round. It’s an intersting tactic and he hasn’t budged an inch in the face of heavy attack from Sego and Bayrou.
12 I am a teacher, well a lecturer but the difference these days is to small to count. Who said I was a member of a teaching union?
If the parties are short of money,they need to do what every other organisation in the UK does in similar situations, reduce budgets and costs.
If the public is not prepared to support a political party then it has no right to exist.
In any case as the HoL is now going to be 100% elected the original reason for the review of funding is no longer valid.
O/T Peter the Punters Each Way Cheltenham special 4 is still running, two seconds and I believe two to run tomorrow.
60.Only a matter of time now before someone on here tells you that they won’t be taking any lectures from you…..
55
‘Nick Palmer has spoken in 15 debates this year (below average among MPs)’
Alex,surely no surprise hear as you cant spend your day surfing websites,posting etc. and be attending debates.
50: Yes, that’s a risk, and it’s also a risk in PR, which I also favour. But I don’t think we can or should beat the BNP by rigging the system to shut out challengers. Anyway I admit to a certain curiosity to see a BNP leaflet that meets the standards of non-partisanship required by the Serjeant-at-Arms! “Fred Smith pictured kissing the British Bride of the Year”, I suppose…
I dunno - do we want to have voters get no information at public expense (which means most will get none at all between elections, and some others will get it only from rich parties), or only from incumbents, or from the incumbent plus a challenger? Seems to me the last is the best way to square the need for information with the need for fairness.
50,64 — the reason the BNP did comparatively well in Barking and Dagenham is that they stood and the Tories barely did and the LibDems didn’t. BNP was Hobson’s Choice for anyone wanting to vote against Labour. If we had better funded parties then maybe they’d stand everywhere and the BNP would not gain a foothold.
Or maybe they’d do what they do now and spend the money on their oh-so-carefully targeted seats and the rest of us can go hang.
It really seems to me that those who oppose state funding of political parties are being bloody minded. The idea of spending just £40m a year on making sure our democracy is free of corruption seems such an obvious no-brainer it really does. For heaven’s sake - the civil service waste that amount of money in a single lunch-time!
People who would refuse to spend 0.01% of government expenditure on making sure that the legislature can be bought are biting off their noses to spite their faces.
66. What a naive post. Funding scandals and political corruption have occurred in many countries which have state funding of parties.
The state should have no business funding political parties, that they have tended to be corruption is not an excuse to bail them out. It’s a terrible message to send. It also militates against change, new parties, breakaways, splits etc. are disadvantaged and the whole system becomes less responsive.
At the very least voters should be given a clear opt out so that they can deny funding to anyone. Not just to lower the overall figure but to deny funding from that specific individual.
Not really MBoy. As Ho Hum points out, corruption scandals take place in countries where parties are largely state-funded.
However, the argument that we need to hand over large amounts of public money to political parties, or else they’ll act dishonestly, is offensive in itself. It’s like MEPs demanding pay rises in return for being honest about their expenses.
64 Most of Nick’s posts today have rested on the assumption that MPs propaganda is vetted… which it may well be but to a very low standard. Basically any old lies and campaigning will get through and the S-a-A will not lift a finger to stop it. I will not be the only ex-PPC to have witnessed it first hand - I have no doubt all parties do it though my experience is with the Labour party.
Perhaps MP’s should fund this out of their own pocket and the money saved used to fund the parties directly.
69. Yes. The argument about rooting out corruption is just a feeble cover for a partisan effort to tilt the funding playing field in favour of the two parties of the left.
66 - nonsense - why should I be taxed to fund ANY political party? Make contributions tax deductible by all means but a failing party that cant fund raise should be allowed to fail and not be propped up by my taxes!!!
Nick - fair enough but that doesnt excuse the fabrication that followed with straw and labour mp’s having the neck to get upset about LEGAL Tory funding. mind you after the sneering and petulent display from jowell earlier, every question avoided with accusations of voting for paris, i suppose there was little point.
on a serious point why does the speaker allow every question to remain unanswered? if written answers are of the same standard then there really is no way of holding the government to account.
What I’m guessing is, if there’s no deal Cameron’ll use it as an election platform. Vote for me and we’ll end a few people buying up party support - vote Gordo and you’ll get more of the same.
73. Because the speaker is a Labour stooge as he has often proved.
60. You said in your post at 9. that you are “helping fund the Labour party” through your union membership and your own laziness. I don’t buy this. No teaching or lecturing union affiliates or donates to Labour.
72 - It rather depends upon how you define a failing party. To my mind a failing party is party that’s unable to attract votes, not a party that’s unable to attract funds.
If state funding were to be linked to votes cast then there’d be no question of taxes propping up failing parties.
Although state funding is, without doubt, an ugly solution I feel it’s the only solution left.
59. I’ve just watched Segolene Royal on ‘You Decide’ and for the most part she was very impressive. The only point when she was less convincing was in answering the question of a telecoms entrepreneur about how she would make it easier to hire people for new businesses and where kept talking about her idea to reduce youth unemployment with ‘trampolene jobs’, financed by the state.
I expect her to get a bounce in the polls however, and I think she will see off Bayrou comfortably.
Question Time: Clare Short her excellent self as usual. I agree with Oborne re the troops. Who is that dreadful Patel woman, she can’t even speak fluently.
Have mixed feelings. Feel transparency is better than funding capes & state funding but parties try to get round transparency (and will find ever more inventive ways). In theory Sykes publically offering cash in exchange for a more Europhobic policy or Unions negotiating a legislative programme in their favour in return for funding Labour are transparent, but impact seems to be to make politics less attractive and voters to stay away (all as bad as each other etc.)
Cash for Honours is defended in same way - they all do it etc.
I hate the idea of state funding, but am realistic enough to know democracy costs. If we go for capping individual donations as suggested and increase transparency over campaign costs cannot see why campaigning should be capped as well. Clearer rules on gifts in kind and misuse of MPs communications yes.
On unions I really cannot see the argument for the leadership deciding what proportion of their political fund they divi out to Labour or their pet party. Political funds have two purposes - to enable unions to campaign for things deemed political and for affiliated unions to help fund the Labour Party. The latter IMHO should be a decision by the individual member - Labour is meant to be a national party “for the many not the few” so to put the decision on how members political dues are given out in the hands of an increasingly few leaders seems to me against the principles of participatory democracy. If a union member wants his political dues to go to Labour then let him sign off that x% does so. Rest can go to union campaign fund.
Let’s not get carried away by the idea that the Tories have a few millionaire backers and Labour are the party of the people who each give a few pounds to the cause: cash for honours has been all about million pound donations to the Labour party and the influence that gives.
I’m thinking that taxpayers’ money could be better spent, so I’d go down the spending caps route. Labour and the Lib Dems could probably stitch up the Tories on this, should they wish, but Mike’s prediction is probably on the money that the details will be too important to get the crossparty consensus.
Re 66, MBoy, those of us who are against state funding of political parties are not convinced at all that state funding will do anything about corruption.
John L 65
Can I say that views like this irritate the …. out of me! John - it is not “they’, it’s us!!! If you had done, as I have over the years, the rounds trying to get people to stand (and it is not just one party that has this problem) - persuading till you’re blue (red or yellow) in the face, you would not make those comments. Have you stood? Have you tied to persuade others to stand? People only stand a) where they believe they MIGHT have a chance and b) if they are committed, c) if they have a fair level of seld confidence. I don’t think party funding will make a deal of difference.
No doubt the moaners will continue - disillusion with “them” in political parties will continue, and we will all be the poorer!
QT - Clare short “why dont we take some legal action against Mugabe?” Not sure we could ask for that with any credibility luv. Optik is a ghastly grandstander but Hitchens for PM
84,If Hithcens were elected PM,I trust you would be tha last person left turning off the lights!!:lol:
Matt J you may be right but the TNS SOFRES poll shows what an uphill climb she faces. In answer to the question whether a candidate has what it takes to be President, the answers were the following:
Sarko yes 68 no 28
Bayrou yes 57 no 33
Sego yes 36 no 57
It seems pretty clear to me from those numbers that the Socialist Party nomination is keeping her afloat; she is definitely a drag on the vote.
85-If ANY right-wing poster on this site-and there are a fair few of you,let’s be frank,thinks for one moment that the hard-right crap of Hitchens will be either:
(a)Enacted by a Cameron govt-IF it ever happens
(b)Hitchens-right politics will ever be the consensus again,as it was under Thatcher-Tebbit in the 1980s,then my goodness,you are in for the shock of your lives-enjoy
Can barely be bothered with QT these days. Watched a bit.
Priti “hang ‘em, flog ‘em” Patel isn’t that bright, is she? Claire Short seemed surprised that Peter Hitchens opposed the Iraq War - which appears a bit prejudiced of her. Mike O’Brien put up a better effort than Labs usually manage, and Lembit was rather less lightweight than usual. But it’s turgid stuff. It tends to hot up in the year running up to a GE.
CK is on next week…
88,Could I be generally forgiven for feeling that:
(a)The centre-left consensus of the last 10 years will hold fast for at least another decade
(b)As a long-time centre-lefter,I should feel secure that the status quo has a long,healthy life left-despite the mid-term hype this Mya’s local elections will throw up-my God,every Tory poster on here will be having kittens:roll:
89 - Sorry to say it but for the last ten years you’ve been voting for an authoritarian quasi-populist right wing party. Shame that.
I see labour supporters as being pretty much in the same area as conservative supporters. All the anger seems manufactured or based on long dead differences. I read your post in that light.
Patrick there never has bee n a ‘centre left consensus’. There has been a ‘lets pretend we are not following a right wing policy’ New Labour conspiracy to fool the core vote though.
90,’Authoritarian’ is not always a term of abuse-yes,I did not agree with how far TB pitched left pre-97-but at that time,who in the Labour Party was not prepared to sell their soul to a greater/lesser extent
91,The present Labour govt has fianlly achieved one thing-to run capitalism better than its Tory predecssor.
(a)Rising eequity for home owners-yes,through a very advanageous will from a relative,I am one!
(b)Low inflation,stable mortgage rates
(c)High investment in public services-health,eduaction-bit of a difference from when the Tories were in offce,when ‘flag day’ charity parades went round for schools,hospitals.
I do NOT deny that the present govt has its faults.I am amongst the first to feel Tony Blair is in the dotage of his premiership.I make no apology for some of the arrogance the govt has shown.But,I am at a loss to see what better alternative is ready for office.Thank you.
91,Also Witan,re left-right,Churchill comprehensively rejected Attlee’s 1945 maifesto-yet by 1951 he only rejected one policy,namely that of steel nationalisation-and on a ‘centre manifesto’ in 1951,Churchill was re-elected-albeit wit less votes than the party he beat in 1951!
’Authoritarian’ is not always a term of abuse
It is according to me, always has been and always will!
Whoop de doo Patrick; I’m a graduate, I cant afford a home, I cant afford a flat even renting one is almost out of reach. I’m overtaxed, in debt for daring to get an education and to top it off I’m having to pay for fixing Browns £100bn pension swindle when I’ve only just entered the ruddy workplace and the local schools just shut down! Why the hell should I thank Labour for anything? I’m worse off than someone in my situation would have been ten years ago.
Really random question for the pb experts: I thought that Dawn Butler MP is a Health PPS, but saw her on the list of Trident rebels. Has she resigned from her position over this?
91,It is historically accepted in UK politica that there was ‘a post-war-consensus’- ‘Butskellism’ was the wors to coin the simialrity between the 1950s Tory Chancellor Rab Butler and then-lesder of HMs opposition,Mr.Hugh Gaitskell
95:(a)Which parlaimentary seat to do you live in?
(b)Despite paying off your loan,you ARE aware you can borrow 5 1/2 to 6 times your inocme,without hindrance
(BTW,this is NOT personal-this is to every last poster,I am at breaking point with the exaggerated right-wing lean here,the venom with which wannabe-BNP members post-as a reasonable ,middle-of-the -road person,could I say,firstly,you do your chosen love-in,(ie a Cameron led Tory govt) no favours,as some of us are starting to speak our minds elsewhere
(ii) It is the case that Snowflake has been shouted off these pages-before anyone says,I have read her posts and wanted to throttle her,but even so,even during the drug debate,it went too far-and yes,I got gobby myself then!My point is-we are adults-can we NOT treat each other better than we have??
95,Parting shot,if what you said is ‘not envious’,than what is?
I have no problem with a reasonable level of state funding.
What I do take issue with is the presumption that this money should go to parties at national level. I should like to see funds feeding in at local party level, (whatever that’s called in each party). This would have the benign effect of decentralising power within each political party.