Can Brown maintain union funding AND stop Ashcroft?
October 21st, 2007
Is party funding about to become the next battle-ground?
This is Michael Ashcroft who in this year’s Sunday Times Rich List was placed in position 87 with an estimated wealth of £800m.
He’s a major donor to the Tory party and before the 2005 general election, as was reported here, he hand-picked a group of Tory candidates in marginal constituencies and then was responsible for providing extra attention and funding to help them with their campaigns.
This morning he is he main focus of a Labour attack. In a GMTV interview the chief whip, Geoff Hoon, is calling for restraints to be placed on money being spent in constituencies in the years up to a general election and not, like at present, just during the campaign itself.
This is going to be tricky territory for Labour - for as soon as they raise the party finding issue out comes the Tory proposal that there should be a £50,000 cap on all donations which would apply to each trade union as well.
This could have a devastating effect on the party which still looks to the unions for a large part of their funding.
The Tories are defending the selective constituency support by pointing to the allowances of upto £40,000 a year that sitting MPs can spend promoting themselves locally. Although Tory MPs benefit as well they hold far fewer seats.
Ashcroft said last week that “In the 100 or so marginal Labour-held seats that will determine the outcome of the next election, sitting Labour MPs in effect have a £4m-a-year head start.”
Brown could use his majority in the commons to force through legislation that protected Labour’s funding sources but impeded the Tories. This, however, has big political risks. It’s not long since there was the “cash for honours” row and being seen to act partially in this manner might not go down well.
Brown also has a problem that in such an argument there’s a dearth of articulate Labour spokesmen who can put a case lucidly and effectively. As I have noted before most of the heavy hitters from the Blair era are no longer there.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Given the number of actvities undertaken by labour that are not far off straight lifts from banana republics - from cash for honours, the Smith Institute, a charity being browns personal think tank, to filling every job in sight with their cronies, of course they will try and fix this in their favour.
No opposition or descenting voice can be heard.
Every day with this lot they are getting closer to needing to be called National Socialists
The answer I think is no.
Sorry to go O/T so early but I think Ted was spot on last night. Scots Brown muscling his way in to the presentation, treated with scant politeness by the England team, it just looks fake.
John Loony wrote that his pub erupted into spontaneous boos.
I think Broon just annoyed an entire nation of Englishmen.
Gutted to lose, but coming second in the World Cup is an outstanding result for the lads
My sense is that politicians are in a vicious circle here. People absolutely don’t want to pay for them through taxation (as happens in Germany, for example), and they don’t want them in the pockets of millionaires or interest groups either - the more they are, the less they are esteemed. But the second is the consequence of the first.
Incidentally, what is the position with the £40,000 allowance where a sitting member is defending a seat with new boundaries? Presumably they can only spend that money within the old boundaries, but what systems are in place to ensure that that is so? (In practice I assume it means that their Constituency Party spends all its money in the “new” wards.) Also, where a Member is standing down, are they allowed to use the allowance on material which, for example, just “happens” to show photos of them with their successor as candidate for their Party?
Frankly if Brown wants to do it, He’ll do it.
It’s utterly unfair and totally motivated by partisan interest but he has a majoirty and will never countanance altering the way in which Union funds are distributed - futhermore i cant see the fall out being all that negative frankly.
As i say unfair and partisan, but the government would get away with it IMHO - although it might be possible to drag the legislation out until the next election (?).
2 Might not have expressed what I meant last night, which applies to this thread also. I’m against Gordon Brown (or David Cameron) as partisan political figures representing the nation. It is rare that politicians will appear above the fray - Winston Churchill being called up to Buckingham Palace balcony at end of WW2 perhaps succeeded but Margaret Thatcher at the Falklands march past didn’t.
Gordon Brown, IMO, is a particularly partisan figure. His approach to the EU issue seems typically Brownian, led by damage limitation to his administration and how he can best use it to damage the Tories.
This proposal is another partisan one - no change on Labour fund raising or financing just see how to damage the Conservative’s ability to compete.
The obviousness of his partisanship does create a big opportunity for Cameron, and Cameron is helped by Brown’s clumsiness as displayed last night. Pushing himself forward into places and events where he is not wanted. He would have better served himself to have sat in the VIP enclosure, next to a member of the Royal Family and let Anne or William or Harry play the representative role (preferably Harry as he is a real English rugby fan). That way he would have been seen as supportive not as a Scot trying to use the event for political purposes.
The Conservatives should exploit this weakness of Brown’s, presenting him as an arrogant, party politician who, rather than face the people and fight for their support at the ballot box, is always working behind closed doors to fix events to his petty advantage. A man who talks of courage but displays none, a man who talks of national interest but is only concerned with his own advantage.
Plus we don’t know how the general public would actually react. A few years ago at college, a visiting leftist MP was speaking on precisely this subject (Bob Marshall-Andrews?) and when questioned replied, with genuine, trembling anger, that it was “outrageous” to suggest that Michael Ashcroft in any way equated the “moral authority” of the Unions. The Unions, he went on to argue, represented the underprivileged British working classes and, as the partial founders of the Labour movement, had every right to fund the party; and conversely, rich individuals had absolutely no right to fund any other party.
There was not a trace of irony about the statement. Could the public swallow it? Admittedly this was before the Cash for Honours scandal (and really, even before Iraq became the quagmire that it is now) so New Labour did not quite carry such a srong odour of moral bankuptcy as they seem to do nowadays. Still, reaching deep into the recesses of the unthinking (the public) or semi-thinking (Guardian columnists) mind, you could begin to see a convincing and emotionally appealing argument being made.
Just ask Nick Palmer!
On both the main thread and 3, Hammersmith provides a good illustration.
The new MP’s allowance will give Labour a massive advantage money-wise in the new Hammersmith seat. The Labour candidate (who currently represents 4 wards) can now spend £10,000 a year of public money for literature in each of the wards he currently represents. This is, of course, over and above his party political spending in the remaining wards. This level of expenditure is unprecedented in British politics - and of course the Tory challeger who is not in the House of Commons cannot hope to match it.
The suggestion that Ashcroft money should be banned would further distort the situation. In 2005 and 2006, Ashcroft gave £30,000 to Hammersmith and Fulham Tories. The unions gave £28,000 to Labour. Plainly, if legislation bans Ashcroft money alone, it would give Labour an extra £15,000 a year edge.
The incumbency factor we see in US politics may well be something we are about to see in the UK as a result of this allowance - and it seems pretty calculated by the government.
I think what the Tory party will do, if they push this, is expose just how Labour MPs are using their so-called non-partisan communication fund. Multiple examples of red and yellow Labour branded leaflets, using all but the word “Labour” and trumpeting the MPs achievments, even plus a slogan!
And all distributed just before, and during, an election.
The public will see the gerrymandering for what it is.
Re 6. As I touched on in the main piece to make this sort of case you need advocates who are capable of getting over such an argument. I’m sure that Bob Marshall-Andrews could - I doubt if anybody in Labour’s current line-up has that capability.
The more I watch and listen to Gordon’s new team the more I’m aware of how poor presentationally they are. You’ve got to have people capable of putting over a compelling case who can convince. Geoff Hoon, the poor soul wheeled out this morning, does not fit into that category.
Also there is the union dimension. Membership has plummeted to record lows and is largely confined to the public sector. As tube strike follows postal strike the unions are nothing like as popular as they were.
OK, let’s assume that being outrageously partisan would slightly put off floating voters, but not to the extent that it wouldn’t be worth doing. Let’s also assume that Brown has no particular scruples being outrageously partisan or in any way unfair to the Tories.
Isn’t the limiting factor on how much what he can do here how much he can get through the House of Lords? (He’d need to do that, right?) Surely if there’s any group of people likely to be sympathetic to the rights of the rich and privileged to wield disproportionate influence, it’s them. In which case he probably can’t push anything through without all-party consensus - and if he knows that, he’s not going to risk taking the collateral damage of pushing outrageously partisan proposals through the Commons without the likely payoff of the proposals actually becoming law.
What Brown really needs is for a rich Labour supporter to step upto the plate and offer to match the Ashcroft money with his own. Then he could negotiate a deal with the Tories, who would presumably rather take this money out of politics, were it not for the advantage it was giving them now.
As we saw with Blair and the West Lothian Question, and Lords reform, and as we saw with Thatcher restricting the unions’ political activities, the realpolitik is the government can do what it likes.
What a lot of gabbage has been spoken last night and this morning about Gordon Brown being present at the presentatation and also the geographical and class spread of Rugby Union.
Firstly Gordon will have been invited by the organisers to the presentation ceremony. Princes William and Harry attended in a private capacity and the Princess Royal is Preseident of the Scottish RU.
The Prime Minister is also a “rugby union man”. He played at decent level at school and lost one eye during a match. He’s paid his dues to the game. Clearly the English players were disappointed at the presentation. What do you expect !!!
The spread of teams in the Premiership is wide. Of the twelve teams :
The North - Newcastle, Sale and Leeds.
The Midlands - Leicester and Worcester.
London - Saracens, London Irish, Wasps and Harlequins.
The West - Bath, Bristol and Gloucester.
Of course has to imposed a cap. The question is simply is whether he can get away with it.
12 your partisanship tiresomely on display once more Jack; what an inane Brown-loving post.
Brown is a SCOT and has s*d all to do with English rugby. He was attempting another photo op - but you of course defended his Iraq stunt as well! The man can do no wrong in your tartan eyes.
The English players treated his posturing with the disdain it deserved. And don’t waste time expressing fake pity - we are second in the World Cup and Scotland is (as ever) nowhere.
12,
Jack, I’ve got no issue with GB being there. As you say, he’s a known Rugby fan. If I were PM and England were in the final of the Cricket World cup, I’d be there (or even if Scotland broke through and got to the final of the Cricket World Cup - I’d be there).
Test. An uncharacteristically mean spirited post. That being said there is no reason to drag other posters in when they said nothing of the sort. Ted has spoken for himself. I never thought for a moment that he would have written the xenophobic tripe that you ascribed to him so I checked. I also checked the post from the admirable John Loony and he also said nothing of the sort. You confused him with the poster ‘John’ whose story was clearly invented.
I agree with Ted. It’s never wise for politicians to involve themselves in social events. In this instance because of the other political leaders on the platform it was impossible for a member of the Royal family to be present and there had to be someone so it could only be our PM.
14 Test. Your inability to discern fact from stupid partisanship is on display as ever.
It is so tiresome and borders on the infantile. Get a grip on the intellect you do have and try and use it more effectively. I’m sure there is a brain cell in their somewhere, although a times it must be lonely.
…and lost one eye during a match - did he leave it behind on the pitch then?
His retina detached, iirc, a condition he is predisposed to. I understand the retina in his right eye also detached following a tennis game - it probably could have happened at anytime.
12. Sorry I should have said Test at 2. I’ve just read your post at 12 and I’m sorry to say but there is something beyond unattractive about your anti-Scottish racism.
Roger. Ted most certainly did say it and I paraphrased what he has repeated on this thread: that Brown, a Scot, was doing this for party political advantage. Another photo op stunt and one that will go down poorly, cf: Loony’s post and the thoroughly merited contempt the England team displayed for his truly shameless posturing.
Sorry should have been 14. Jack on the nail!
21. Ted can answer for himself. Was his point that Brown had no place on the podium because he was a Scot? That’s not how I read it.
And John LOONY didn’t mention Brown. You are confusing him with the Tory poster known as ‘John’ who ludicrously claimed that everyone in his pub stopped singing the National Anthem to stand up and boo Brown when he momentarily appeared on screen. Like all posts from this poster it should be taken with a large dollop of salt!
18
Surely making jokes about someone almost losing their sight is pretty low. Thought Tories were no longer the, ‘nasty party’
As a matter of interest, what sort of level of sporting prowess, did David cameron achieve?
There is not only as Mike says a dearth of presentational quality in the cabinet, there is a dearth of quality in all aspects. The longer Brown delays a GE the more this will become apparent.
Both of the LD Leadership candidates would walk into this cabinet’s top positions of Home Secy, Chancellor and Foreign Secy ahead of the incumbents, they were Labour MPs.
Ashcroft’s real value is not his cash (about £1m pa), but the discipline and focus he encourages in the PPCs.
24 sorry in 3rd para missed the word “if” they were Labour MPs.
Like it or not Rog there is no British team. England and Scotland are not only separate nations but sporting rivals. Therefore a Scots head of govt has no place muscling in for a photo op with English players who’ve just come second in the world cup.
You may disapprove of how the English players treated Brown but I didn’t.
I doubt Cameron would have done it either. Politicians have no place. Brown wants to cultivate a presidential image but our PM is NOT head of state. It was inappropriate, he desrved what he got and you’ll find English male voters share this view; bet on it.
Weapons expert Dr David Kelly was assassinated, an MP claims today.
Campaigning politician Norman Baker believes Dr Kelly, who exposed the Government’s “sexed-up” Iraq dossier, was killed to stop him making further revelations about the lies that took Britain to war.
He says the murderers may have been anti-Saddam Iraqis, and suggests the crime was covered up by elements within the British establishment to prevent a diplomatic crisis.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…d=1770&ct=5
I noticed that the South African team greeted their President with genuine warmth and many hugs.
24. This is true, marginals present a campaign plan and it’s very focussed. Afaik funding comes from cchq - ashcroft is a major donor but more than half comes from other sources
Woger - Its your posts that need a dollop of salt. Yesterday you lied through your teeth alleging that Howard wanted to hang eight year olds, you then readjusted Cleggs CV by sending him to the wrong University, you have decided that Brown is a Head of State like Sarkozy and Mbeki.
Now I suppose that Football is a nasty game for what you would call Sun reading prolls, but millions heard the booing that greeted Brown when he turned up at Wembley to see “this country” (he rarely if ever says England) play. So dont allege others are doing what you do, day and day out.
You are an absurd parody of champagne socialism.
Next time you are spooning in the muesli, try and find a brain cell.
26. Lest’s not let Test get away with the proposition that the English players were so childish as to disrespect the Prime Minister. Rugby players are above such tantrums.
The truth is that the English team had played their part in making the tournament an excellent spectacle and had narrowly lost a tight final and for many of them this was their last international. Our Gawd might have been replaced by Mother Theresa and the players would have looked liked they’d been chewing on a box of lemons. Being a losing finalist is a desperate place and we shouldn’t allow “Test” to represent base motives to a fine set of English players.
26. Test. If you think the rugby players exhausted and down after losing the final were actually snubbing Brown for being Scottish by a perfunctory handshake then explain what they had against Sarkosi or Mbeki or the head of the French rugby federation who were also treated perfunctorily. I doubt any of them at that moment even considered whose hand they were shaking. They were in shock.
20 Test sorry that it not what I meant - I have no issue with Gordon Brown being a Scot being in the VIP seats supporting England, indeed as a rugby fan I’m sure he enjoyed the event. I do think however that politically it was a mistake for him to take such a prominent role as it comes across as seeking party political advantage, and indeed with Gordon in everything he does there is that partisanship which makes it look false. That weakness can be exploited.
Margaret Thatcher occasionally made the same mistake, John Major rarely but Tony Blair is the one who most tried to take on mantle of Head of State rather than head of government. Cherie’s claim to be First Lady, Tony’s desire to “speak for the nation” on every possible occasion or appear on photo ops in any disaster or triumph. Blair’s intrusion into the Ashes celebrations went down badly. Brown is continuing that trend and it’s bad politics.
JackW is correct that William and Harry were there as private individuals - well they shouldn’t have been, one should have been there as HM representative (not Anne as she is Scots RFU). Had England won Gordon Brown would have been an object of derision standing on the podium with the team - as would have been the case IMHO if it were PM Cameron, though then without the anti-Scots undertones.
The Gordon Brown thing is nothing to do with him being Scottish IMO. And nothing to do with him being Labour. And yes, he may well have been invited so it is probably not even his fault he was there. Blame the people who invited him.
It is just a fact that the British have a large dislike for politicians being seen at National Sporting occasions. And you could see from how uncomfortable he looked from the anthem onwards that he didn’t really want to be there.
I doubt he was “muscling in”. That’s what Ken Livingstone did in 2003 (and was roundly booed accordingly). But he shouldn’t really have been there. The other politicians were all Heads of State. A good argument against combining the Executive and Ceremonial functions.
I agree with Roger and Jack. Losing a final is a wrenching experience. The UK PM was at an event where one of the Home Nations was in the final, a sport which he is a long-standing fan and (in his youth) a participant.
If John Major had been at a domestic cricket final between (say) Essex and Yorkshire, would it have been hypocritical because he is a known Surrey fan? I doubt it - he’d enjoy it anyway.
I don’t think there is any political dimension against the Rugby World Cup.
Desperate! More anti-English trolling from Jack in his supine support for his beloved leader “Our gawd”.
It wasn’t *me* who noted the English players’ behaviour last night when confronted with GB’s political posturing. It was widely commented on on PB - suggest you read the end of last night’s thread Jack.
Tremendous contempt for a non-English politician trying to use them for his own ends. Bloody good thing too, well done the boys!
BTW the stuff about the English players is just nonsense IMO.
36 Test. I note your brain cell is now not only lonely but has gone missing in action !!
How any comment of mine in recent weeks on the rugby might be seen as “anti-English trolling” just shows that you should immenently expect a visit from the gentleman in white coats.
34 - “It is just a fact that the British have a large dislike for politicians being seen at National Sporting occasions”
Remember Margaret Thatcher getting booed immensely at a Scottish FA Cup final (1988 IIRC) as well.
If Brown was really there to boost his pro-England credentials then it didn’t really work did it? Being snubbed is one thing, and I doubt if the players (had they won) would have appreciated him joining in.
Mind you, Brown is trying a bit too hard to be an England fan. Remember this?
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=757742006
Sports fans are an unforgiving bunch at the best of times. And so are players : one of the Ashes 2005 squad called Tony Blair a “nob” in the after-series party that was held at No 10. Although that could have been the way that the Government handled the Zimbabwe cricket problem a couple of years before, where the England squad were effectively left on their own.
Personally I reckon Gordon knew it wasn’t a good idea to go, but got stuck with it because politicians (and especially Labour politicians with their Republican sympathies) have never really been comfortable with deferring to the Royals.
Test I can’t stand the sight of Brown and wish the English ruby players had snubbed him big time but he is the PM of the UK and
your arguing that a Scots PM cannot represent England at such events is just daft. Genuine concern for the West Lothian question etc is too often being used far too often as a excuse for rather unpleasant comments about Scots in Tory circles these days. It demeans the Party.
33 Ted, I’m not being clear enough, obviously. Your posts suggested Broon was playing this for party political advantage - I agree. I *additionally* think it was low for a mere PM, from a rival country in rugby terms, to be there gladhanding the team. We very deliberately separate govt and state functions and Brown cannot claim to be an English sports fan.
Indeed it grates because many of us suspect that like many Scots (not all, but a big slice) Brown actually rejoices when England loses. His biographer Tom Bowyer wrote of an incident where he and friends cheered an English footie defeat.maybe bowyer invented it but I doubt it.
So the men booing him when he turned up at Wembley for English football, and the English team last night, were imo both well within their rights.
Anyway as the next few polls feed in we’ll see what this latest backfiring stunt did for his image.
Anatole at 6 calls me from the vasty deep, so I’ll have a go.
1. The public neither want taxpayer-funded propaganda nor seats bought by lavish private money. They want spending restraint. If the issue is addressed, it’s more likely to be in spending limits than donation limits. This removes the problem highlighted in the article: Ashcroft and the unions would still be free to give money, but there would be limits on spending it.
2. There are numerous practical difficulties in enforcing constituency-specific spending restraint (e.g. most direct mail from outside that doesn’t mention the candidate doesn’t breach local spending rules even during elections), so it needs national as well as local limits.
3. The £10K parliamentary allowance (I don’t understand the stuff about it being in four wards so £40K - it’s £10K per constituency, so this must be some weird case of a seat merged from four others?) is required to be non-partisan (normally pre-checked by the Fees Office). Obviously the author will hope the recipient feels warmly towards him or her and clearly it helps do a good job, but it’s not the same as being able to put a party argument.
I tested it with a recent survey, adding a question, saying (from memory): “This survey costs £500 and will be paid for by taxpayers from the Communications Allowance. The allowance is controversial because it’s seen as a way to raise the profile of sitting MPs. Do you think this is a good use of the money?” Over 90% said yes, in an overwhelmingly Tory area.
Moreover, even if it did give an unfair edge to sitting MPs, the overall system still needs to be fixed, as otherwise a sitting Tory government will have both rich donors and the CA, which those who criticise the CA will presumably accept would be unreasonable.
4. The LibDems are just as badly affected as Labour by the Ashcroft machine, so they’re likely to help get reform through both Houses. Even the Tories privately think it’s weird that we’ve allowed it up to now - I think Sean Fear expressed surprise about that here.
5. Any reform is likely to be too late to affect the next election much. I can’t see it taking effect until early 2009. That said, there are counter-moves that one can make. My strategy is simply to go on and on about all the Tory literature people are going to get from the Ashcroft money so as to buy their votes. By the time I’ve finished, every time they get something, they’ll say, “Huh! It’s the Tories trying to buy me again.” Maybe.
34: But what they really dislike is politicians trying to attach sporting glory to themselves like Gordon tried. England lost and so did Gordon.
Can I say that the last part of yesterday’s thread was very hilarious?
45 - Which particular bit Andrea?
Meanwhile, it’s nice to see that the Sunday Times knows even less about rugby than me.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/
- see the “World Cup Dream Ends for England” paragraph. Even I know who we were playing…
43 - The 40K was 10K x 4 years. The 4 ward stuff was something about boundary changes i think
45 Yes you can Andrea and have done so !!
Did you watch the rugby ?? … all those chaps in shorts ??
There’s some gory details about the Blair/Brown relationship in today’s Mail on Sunday from a new book by Tony Seldon. Not good reading for Brownites but no real surprise to any of us methinks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488794&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
46. The whole thing about rugby, Brown’s presence, being glad England lost because Brown could have got a couple of photo shots with the trophy and the big question on who represented who within the Royal Family
My silly idea that Italians were too political even in not political situation compared to the rest of the world (maybe TV apart) has been swept away by Rugby and Brown
Nick Palmer, as you know I respect you as a reasonable and honest guy so please answer this for me.
If the “communications allowance” is NOT a mere electioneering tool, can you explain to me why Labour MPs put out leaflets and write unsolicited letters just before or during election campaigns?
Our Labour MP wrote and leafleted before the May locals. He then leafleted right before the election that wasn’t. Pre-posted letters to constituents have just landed on mats on what would have been week 2? Of the campaign.
Nothing, I submit, can explain the timing of the sending except electioneering.
If I, as a Tory, were to demand Labour MPs account for exactly *when* they spend their leafleting allowance and it were to come back 75% in election periods, would you then concede, in honesty, that it’s an electioneering tool LibDem and Tory challengers are denied?
Put it another way, Nick, and this is very important. I would bold it if I knew how -
Election expenses are £12 k approx. Does Labour suggest challengers should have only this, but Labour MPs should have *DOUBLE* - £12k of expenses, £11k of self-promoting government money, so £33k?
Say you know this is wrong!
BTW Clegg and Huhne on Beeb One now.
Nick@43 (or anyone else who might know): Not being familiar with how spending limits work in the UK, I’m wondering: Do the kind of spending limits you’re talking about actually work, or can they be trivially evaded? For example, could Ashcroft divert his money to Broxtowe Dog Lovers Against Communism and have them campaign against Labour there instead?
PS. All this argument about the rugby this morning seems very bad-tempered. Everyone hung over or something?
Clarifying - should Labour MPs have double the spending limit to promote themselves during an election period? 11k expenses, plus 11k “communications” that are saved up for the election?
OT. Just watching Clegg on Marr and he reminds me a lot of pre ‘97 Blair. A very attractive personality and pleasantly leftish. Anatole wrote that his speech making is nothing like as good as Cameron’s. From yesterday’s evidence that’s probably true but he’s much more personable and believable in an interview situation which I guess is at least as important.
Huhne is also good and possibly a little better prepared but he doesn’t have the engaging personality that Clegg has
51 - “being glad England lost because Brown could have got a couple of photo shots with the trophy”
You made that bit up
52 - I know the TV adverts are telling us how wonderful our Postal service but i didn’t know that it was possible to “pre-post letters” to arrive on a set day some weeks in the future!
Would certainly solve the problem of missing relatives’ birthdays!
54 - I think Nick would be a bit stupid to answer that question other than “yes, the limits are watertight”!
Test, MPs are not allowed to use the CA during their election campaigns, because technically they cease to be MPs on the day the election is called. This is very strictly interpreted - we were told that if CA letters arrived after the putative election was called, even if only due to the postal strike, we’d be in trouble.
I think it would be a perfectly reasonable amendment to the CA to ban it during local election campaigns too - I didn’t use it in this year’s all-out Broxtowe elections because it seemed to me that people would feel it was at best an unfortunate coincidence. And I agree there’s a dilemma: it clearly is helpful to incumbency because it helps the MP stay in touch, but we want MPs to stay in touch because it’s a perceived snag of democracy that they don’t (much). One solution I’ve thought about is offering the runner-up in every seat an allowance for a similarly non-partisan annual report on constituency issues from his or her viewpoint: this would balance the tendency of CA reports to dwell on the positive. Would that have your support in conjunction with partisan spending limits?
Meanwhile, I see the Telegraph reports that the number of people to sign their online petition for an EU referendum is, er, zero:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?grid=F18&petition=europe&view=PETITION&xml=news/2007/06/25/view25a.xml&_requestid=792507
I could have sworn I’d read of *someone* who favoured a referendum.
58. Alex, never…
“Glad England lost on reflection. The thought of GB getting in on the act and being on all the news bulletins holding the trophy, and hosting the inevitable Downing St reception, would just have been too much”
Being on rugby and politics, I can announce that Westminster Parliamentary Rugby Team finally won a match at the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup last month. They defeated Argentina.
Argentina was even left without a player for the match against France and Chris Bryant had to play for them too.
54. Yes, very bad tempered - let’s wait to see what Hamilton does today! Will Brown snub him by not being there?
I’ve just finished watching Huhne and Clegg being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show and they both came over very well. In presentational terms they are well ahead of almost the entire cabinet - including Brown.
This is going to be a good contest for the party.
The Ashcroft money is quite small in each constituency but his organisational skills are the real target for Labour who are following their usual tactics: if you can’t rise to the challenge, then misuse the law to block it.
61 - Sounds nice, but:
One solution I’ve thought about is offering the runner-up in every seat an allowance for a similarly non-partisan annual report on constituency issues from his or her viewpoint
Think that might run into some problems in the courts!
Nick thank you for the reply. But Lab MPs got to leaflet using their allowance right before the election. And they were red and yellow Labour branded using Labour’s typeface, included a slogan “X mp - standing up for Y” and a photo of the MP with a local issue he took credit for.
Is that fair?
I think the answer is to restrict a communications allowance to answering mail and emails, and to ban “here’s what a great MP I am” unsolicited leaflets and letters.
Do that and I will support a ban on spending between cycles.
You show fairness by offering the nearest challenger a match, but what about the Libs in third place? No, a communications allowance should be just that and unsolicited puffery (especially cod-branded in party colours) banned.
Labour really needs to decide how much it wants to fix the system. If the party bulldozes its advantage through in the teeth of Tory and LidDem opposition, what is to stop us being equally ruthless to our own advantage when we win?
54: Edmund, the spending limits during campaigns sort of work. If Dog Lovers Against Communism endorses the Tories in Broxtowe, explicitly or implicitly (a court would decide where they crossed the line), then their expenses would count towards the Tory spending limit. I forget what the position is if they only oppose a candidate and don’t recommend a different one (I remember it arising somewhere with anti-abortion campaigners targeting a noted pro-choice MP).
But the main loophole is the one I mentioned, that stuff from outside the constituency that doesn’t mention the candidate (and this applies to phone canvassing too) is not covered - that I suppose reflects the archaic concept that parties don’t really exist and elections are all about candidates.
at a pub in earlsfield (in Tooting, a labour held seat) Gordon Brown was booed by the whole pub when the tv cut to him during the national anthem…
now maybe rugby fans are disproportionately tory, but it certainly shows “hating” Gordon Brown is socially acceptable….
69. Where did you get that information alex?
Have just read last night’s thread. Were half those concerned drunk?
68: Interesting to hear spending limits are more-or-less working in the UK. My understanding was that a lot of countries have tried and failed to do this kind of thing. The US would be the most famous one; Over here they have some hideously complicated laws regulating electoral activity, despite (or because of) which the whole political system seems to be a massive corrupt money-raising contest.
I suppose the main reasons for other countries failing would be:
a) Constitutions guaranteeing freedom of speech.
b) The people passing the laws weren’t really trying.
*** Dreaming up all kinds of complicated schemes whereby someone could stop the Tories spending money in Broxtowe by sending out leaflets from Dog Lovers Against Communism saying things like, “This man has raised hundreds of pounds for homeless kittens - he must be stopped at all costs!” ***
Nick Palmer Can you tell us how much cash and in-kind support Labour candidates get from donors,trade unions and other associated bodies between elections?
26. The comments about the England players disrespecting Gordon is just rubbish. Every sports fan know when you have lost, and the other team is going to pick up the cup you just want to get it over with and get off the field. The England players did just that. For all my dislike of Union that is how the behaved.
Whoever organised the events last night clearly invited the British Prime Minister,and surely the FCO would have advised if it should have been covered by the royals.
28. Remember 1995! The Boks were turned by Nelson Mandela from a symbol of apartheid to a symbol of the rainbow nation in one step when he came on the field in the team kit. It was clear that the players reaction to Thabo Mbeki was in the same spirit. He is no Mandela and was clearly using the event for his own poularity. The cross race support for the SA team shown on TV shows that Mandela’s original aim worked. If that is reinforced by winning the union world cup then its good news
30 Come off it booing politicians happens every time they appear at sports grounds- its a bit like referees
70 - That wasn’t me, Roger.
Although it’s hardly “news” to hear that boo-ing politicians is socially acceptable!
75. It’s bad enough when people use multiple identities but to use the identity of an existing poster makes posting a waste of time.
Are people still harping on about the rugby?
As my late grandad used to say of that stupid sport and its players - If they called it “work” they wouldn’t do it!
So far as I can see rugby is nothing more than a bunch of brain-dead thugs having a punch up in the middle of a muddy field.
Crikey! Still banging on about the Rugby..!
The demographics of this site’s readership as clearly revealed this morning as that of the Sunday Telegraph.
‘there’s a dearth of articulate Labour spokesmen who can put a case lucidly and effectively’
How very true. And the problem starts at the top. Brown comes over appallingly badly, as wooden and unconvincing as they come.
76. Of course it’s not news. But it’s the way information often false finds it’s way into the mainstram media. This from last nights thread but with a different username. From last nights thread;
“Anybody else wondered at the strange use of the present continuous tense of fear?
Also I was in a pub for the rugby final and at the national anthem many stood and joined in beseeching God for our noble queen, and then Gordon Brown was was shown red tied and blue shirted and the strangest thing happened: the enitre pub errupted in booing and cursing at his image.”
by John October 21st, 2007 at 1:46 am
78 - Steve
…beat me by a minute, more worrying is that two readers can come up with a nearly identical post un prompted.
81. Roger - get a life. The idea that anecdotal stuff posted on an obscure website by an anonymous poster is somehow going to tarnish the prime minister’s image is risible. You must be very insecure indeed about Brown to think that.
Roger are you saying Loony was lying? He. Was there.
81 - I would be very surprised if that didn’t happen in a pub somewhere in the country. OK, so maybe it was said on a bit thick, and as likely to be “pantomime booing” as anything, but I agree with steve at 83. After all, my good generous self felt compelled to say he looked a bit like John Redwood. Which he did!
84 - it wasn’t Loony.
*rewrite that: OK so maybe the story was embellished a bit… etc etc
84. Test. No. But it wasn’t “loony” it was “John”!!
I was complaining about your misidentification of the poster “John” with “John Loony” who is someone quite different (and someone who happens to be a poster I like). By contrast the ‘other’ “John” is someone who posts crap using several different usernames.
Politicians at sporting or other public events get booed, that’s a given, it doesn’t matter who they are, as long as they have a level of recognition it’ll happen. Same with watching TV in a pub or some such, politician on screen = booing.
It’s a general anti-politician thing, not party political.
81: People in pubs watching an important match tend to boo politicans in the crowd, it happens to everyone. Your reaction is though very telling.
Apols to Loony! Fair point then Roger
19 & 22
‘Sorry I should have said Test at 2. I’ve just read your post at 12 and I’m sorry to say but there is something beyond unattractive about your anti-Scottish racism.’
Talking about racism,I certainly don’t enjoy the blatant anti-English racism in Scotland that results in English students paying University fees which are not applicable to scottish or other European students,
‘You are confusing him with the Tory poster known as ‘John’ who ludicrously claimed that everyone in his pub stopped singing the National Anthem to stand up and boo Brown when he momentarily appeared on screen.’
Can you please refer to the post where you claim I said this,as I haven’t been to the pub since Wednesday,either someone is using my name or your completely muddled as usual!
Watching Clegg and Huhne this morning one sensed that the Lib Dems
should be back in the game by Christmas.
“The futures bright, the futures orange”, we will have to wait and see.
On the main subject, some interesting thoughts so far:
1. Ashcroft looks after the campaigns, and donates some of the money.
2. He does not himself pick the seats to get the funding, a committee (on which he sits with others) does that.
3. Labour pile in loads of cash into marginals.
Now if Brown tries to “fix” that, he will have trouble in the House of Lords, and possibly the press, for as Mike has noted, he has no quality players left.
On the Rugby, I agree that politicians turning up at these sorts of events is wrong. South Africa and France did not send PM’s they sent heads of state as they are republics. It would have been better to send either the Queen or a representative. That would have applied had it been Cameron there.
91: The English aren’t a race but a nationality so how could it be racism?
87
‘I was complaining about your misidentification of the poster “John” with “John Loony” who is someone quite different (and someone who happens to be a poster I like). By contrast the ‘other’ “John” is someone who posts crap using several different usernames.’
Roger,sorry but you have the exclusivity in terms of crap posts and in terms of people posting under differnt user names look no further than yourself with ‘The Reverend Doctor’ and last night ‘leedsliveitloveit’
The day the ‘Big Clunking Fist’ needs me to defend him hopefully will never arrive! My complaint is the plethora of posters using using more than one name!
Can we be specific here? It looks as though someone has posted a story about Gordon Brown under two different aliases, one of them impersonating a regular poster. That seems to me a violation of any kind of web posting rule - can you have a look at the IP address and ban him for good, Mike?
Nick, any opinion on the reports of Ed Balls calling Gordon a ‘bottler’?
97 - Probably Will L up to his old tricks again!
97
Thank you, on the other hand it could be Roger being muddled as he seems to be unwilling or unable to tell me where and when I supposedly made this post.
100 - I may be going out on a limb here but could it be possible that there is more than one person called John posts on here?
If people want exclusivity over a name then we need registration, you can’t claim a widely used name as your own property!
91. John. Are you the “John” I refer to in my post at 81? If so you apparently went to a pub last night!!
95. Is this the same “John” or are you the one who went to the pub last night?
Anyway To whom it may concern; I am not “LeedsLiveetc”. I have never been to a rugby league game in my life! Neither am I “Reverend Doctor”! I am and remain Your Obedient Servant “Roger”!
John at 100,
I think it’s post 389 on the previous thread that’s being talked about.
I shouldn’t worry about it though. With so many people called John about it, hardly seems odd that more than one John might post here. This looks like a simple case of there being more than one John posting in good faith - nothing sinister.
If it helps, a direct link to the post by someone called “John” that’s under discussion is here
100. John. The post under your name appears on yesterday’s thread timed at 1.46 am.
102: We’re not accusing anyone of anything, you are.
Roger, if you think someone is using sock puppets Email Mike and point it out don’t make allegations with no proof.
Nick Palmer Any chance of a reply to my post above. I must say it is not a trap, it is a real question. I know there is trades union input (or their used to be when I was a union rep) often in kind rather than cash, and I believe that Sainsbury has made donations to constituency or regional committees, but I could be wrong.
For easy reference my post asked:
Can you tell us how much cash and in-kind support Labour candidates get from donors,trade unions and other associated bodies between elections?
The two posts are 389 last night, under the name ‘john’ and 69 today, under the name ‘alex’. Both people who post regularly under those names have confirmed that it wasn’t them. Neither name is rare, but two new posters saying much the same thing under two regular posters’ names is…odd. It’s easy for Mike to check the IP addresses, though, and compare with known posters and each other, so I suggest we leave it to him.
Re 94, Ralph,” 91: The English aren’t a race but a nationality so how could it be racism?”
In which case neither are the Scots who are intermarried and inter related to both the English and Irish, as well as having immigrants from both sides on both sides of the borders.
Re 101, UKPaul, “100 - I may be going out on a limb here but could it be possible that there is more than one person called John posts on here?”
Do you think so?
Could there really be more than one John in the world?
Shocking
Roger has always hated posters with multiple names eg Scally and he wouldn’t do that.
I’m sure some posters have used multiple names. It’s most often used when somebody wants a response to agree with them (so they post one under a false name). It’s annoying.
Using somebody else’s name is nasty though.
112 - “It’s most often used when somebody wants a response to agree with them (so they post one under a false name).”
HEAR HEAR!
What struck me about Brown at the rugby last night was the look Brown gave Wilkinson after Wilkinson blanked him. If
I was Jonny I’d start checking under my car and varying my route to work.
100 & 102
81 is not me,91 & 95 is.
I will in future post under JohnF
112 - 113 (As I have just demonstrated).
By the way, I have never echoed my comments under a false name before, or impersonated another. When I first came here there was already a Sam, so I chose the name SBS.
Nick P, I’ve expressed surprise that the Government has allowed the Ashcroft funding to continue for so long, not because I think there’s anything wrong with it, but because I would expect the Government to shut down anything that would level the playing field in marginal seats.
The communications allowance isn’t used to fund explicitly partisan propaganda, but can be used to fund leaflets portraying the sitting MP in a good light, so it does work against any party wishing to challenge the incumbent.
117 - I would have to say that in Reading East, the incumbent puts out very glossy leaflets putting him in a good light, presumably from the communcations allowance. I hope that Rob Wilson pays our very own Rik W well for this.
7 - Are you sure Hammersmith is such a good example?
Isn’t it, for now anyway, represented by a Conservative, despite being notionally a semi-safe Labour seat?
94 - I’ve got to say this is a rather one-sided post if it’s genuinely in response to post 91!
BTW my “post-match analysis” of the Brown situation regarding the rugby is as follows (based on a literal man-in-the-pub poll): it’s somewhere between the two extremes.
First off, the whole episode of players’ reactions was most definitely noticed by people - particularly that of Wilkinson who appeared to turn away whilst Brown was still talking to him (about fiscal discipline over the growth cycle).
However the general mood was simply that Brown had severely misjudged what he was supposed to do in that situation - many words or few. Clearly, aside from not “doing” sincerity, Brown also doesn’t “do” appropriate socialising. Most people were left thinking “what a plonker”. On the other hand, I did not hear anyone mention the West Lothian Question, by proxy or otherwise. His being Scotch (and yes I do insist on using that term) made little if any impact on the proceedings.
Still, the misjudgement is still indicative of Brown’s weakness in that area, and may in time prove important in and of itself. Brown just doesn’t cut the “man I’d have a beer with” profile - and unfortunately in this post-Blair world, that’s important. Thanks, Tony!
“First off, the whole episode of players’ reactions was most definitely noticed by people - particularly that of Wilkinson who appeared to turn away whilst Brown was still talking to him (about fiscal discipline over the growth cycle).”
Lol
109: I would love one of these ‘Scots are a race’ lot to point out the genetic differences between my family that comes from ten miles north of the border from a family that comes from ten miles south of it.
Calling Scots a race is just a stick to hit people with just like calling criticism of Islam racist.
123 - There’s no obvious “ism” to go with Xenophobia, so racism is just a shorthand. Not worth getting worked up about.
122
agreed , funniest post I’ve seen in a while
I find Labour MPs use of the communications allowance to be absolutely abhorrent. My local MP sent out her “Barbara Keeley MP News” not long ago. It was:
- Bright red with yellow trim
- full of stories about how great the Government is
- furnished with a big picture of Gordon Brown on page 2
- delivered a week before Brown was expected to call an election
I had a nice rant about it on my blog (http://www.iainlindley.co.uk/2007/09/28/political-propaganda-at-your-expense/) which provoked a toadying comment from an anonymous (surprise surprise) Labour source to rival anything seen on PB.com!
Link broke:
http://www.iainlindley.co.uk/2007/09/28/political-propaganda-at-your-expense/
Afternoon all!!
Just stopped by to say, yes, I was *absolutely* pasted last night and, yes, I did post on the pb-thread at my mates house after the rugby too!!
Although, some people seemed to think I was impersonating people???
Rubbish. I always post in my own name.
All the alcohol and the emotion of losing that try (and hence the match) did not help me maintain civility in the face of the rampant europhilia of some posters.
Me was not happy.
With a sober head, I *still* consider europhiles to be traitors(yes Mr. Palmer, that means you - it also includes Clarke, Heseltine et al & even one of my mates) though I’m sure they, themselves, think they’re very progressive, internationalist and forward-thinking instead.
Doesn’t stop ‘em going on my list
I am possibly the most one-eyed rugby supporter in the world (I watch most of my rugby from the Shed). But even I know that Cueto’s foot went into touch.
There was one “crossing” event that wasn’t called against South africa and one that was called and shouldn’t have been against England. Burger might have got a yellow card at one stage. That was about it.
117: thanks for clarifying, Sean Fear.
128: I know you’re being jolly and all that, but actually I do object to being called a traitor, and would be grateful for moderation of this sort of thing. How Clarke and others feel about it is a matter for them, but they don’t post hear under their own names (nor, come to that, do you, hmm?).
Back on topic: I still don’t understand where Ashcroft gets this:
“In the 100 or so marginal Labour-held seats that will determine the outcome of the next election, sitting Labour MPs in effect have a £4m-a-year head start.”
It’s been explained upthread as referring to four years (but that’s not what he says) or multiply merged constituences (but it’s certainly not the case in more than one or two that they’ve been merged from four bits). He’s simply wrong, isn’t he?
130 - £40,000 x 100 = £4m unless my maths is dodgy.
Bill Maclaren (of blessed memory) had a wonderful expression that he used to use when he disagreed with a referee (or thought that the ref had missed something “The referee is the sole judge of fact”…in other words get on with it.
Many decisions in rugby are interpretational (including most of what goes on in the scrum); I thought that this ref got it right virtually every time. On the try that wasn’t, the rule (as in cricket) is that if you can’t be sure it’s not a try (or not out, as the case may be).
Overall it was the best rugby world cup ever (lots of very close games, and plenty of unexpected results); the winner is the game of rugby, and that’s how it should be.
If only politics was conducted in the same spirit.
Can I suggest a pb.com competition?
We all derided Nick Palmer about the rather toadying question he asked at PMQT 10 days ago. So, go on, what would YOU ask? To be written in the format of a PMQ.
I am happy for Mike Smithson to be the judge
97. It seems Nick Palmer is also desperately worried about how GB’s image might be trashed as a result of some silly post in the early hours on PB.com.
Isn’t everyone getting just a bit carried away with the importance of the site?
How could GB’s image be trashed anymore than it has already. he is a complete laughing stock. Did he announce any troop withdrawals at the rugby?
The Ashcroft dynamic is a welcome innovation. It helps level up the playing field; Labour were and are vastly overrepresented given their share of the vote. The Tories I think are just under parity in terms of percentage of the vote and seats.
I think it is gross hypocrisy to talk of Tories buying seats nick, maybe you should moderate your language on this issue. Given politicians want to engage the public and raise turnout, it seems a funny thing to complain about a political party engaging with the electorate. If Labour continue to “go” on this; the Tories can engage in a negative strategy similar to the sleaze agenda of the 90’s and cause Labour catastrophic damage. Cash for peerages has tainted the Labour brand, to rape the electoral system and rig it would not do the Labour party any good at all. What sort of country do Labour want us to live in - a totalitarian communist regime? Instead of moaning about the Tories: Why don’t Labour MP’s and the Labour party reconnect with the electorate? Labour are locked into a “loses” strategy, which is completely defensive. Further tampering with the electoral system will just show how out of touch Labour are, instead of engaging in modernising Britain and looking to the future Labour MP’s will seem only to be working in their own self interest.
Is someone in the “Balls” camp a Tory mole? I noticed in the Mail on Sunday Balls called Brown a “Bottler” – Did one of “Balls” entourage brief the Shadow Chancellor about the “Bottler” tag – it seems remarkable that Osborne not only managed to unveil most of the Governments strategy at the Tory party conference but also managed to utilise the Bottler tag? I think the Labour party is starting to turn in on its self already.
:lol: 
It’s all very odd. The only time I’ve ever been accused of treachery was in 1975, at the time of the referendum, by Tories, when I said I was going to vote No.