The power of incumbency is increasing all the time. Many local newspapers won't give space to candidates who are challenging incumbent MPs, no matter what the newsworthiness of the story is. MPs recently voted themselves an extra £10,000 to publicise their 'achievements' to their electorate. This is enough to pay for four MP Report newspapers a year.And now the Labour Party wish to curtail the amount of money local political parties can spend in between elections. They have submitted proposals to Sir Hayden Phillips to cap local spending. This would emasculate the ability of local candidates to campaign, and mean that while MPs can spend thousands a year publicising themselves, candidates would be unable to do so. This is partly driven by Labour's financial plight. They find themselves in a position whereby they cannot hope to compete with the Conservatives, who have a well funded treasure chest to fund local campaigns in marginal seats. So Labour are basically saying: we've buggered up our own finances so if we can't play, we're going to make damned sure you Tories can't either. These are the tactics of the playground bully.
So not only are Labour refusing to cap Trade Union donations, they're now trying to stop Opposition parties carrying out entirely legitimate local campaigning activities. Let's hope Sir Hayden doesn't fall for this. If he does, the Conservatives should withdraw co-operation from his Inquiry.
24 comments:
Oh, come off it Iain. You know perfectly well that the current rules are a licence to pour money into marginal constituencies. Presumably you are squealing because it would hurt the Conservatives more than Labour, or any other party for that matter. As for your rant about the treatment of TU affiliation fees, what's wrong with working people paying for their interests to be represented? That's exactly what rich people do. Donation caps are not going to stop that, as you well know from experience where they have been tried.
There is a very interesting legal question as to whether "local" political spending in the period prior to the calling of an general elections falls within the definition of national campaign expenditure (for which the period is 12 months before the date of the election rather than the month or so for the local limit) - if it does (and most lawyers who have looked at the PPERA definition think it does) then the Conservatives very clearly broke the spending limit at the last General Election.
Do we really wanty a system where parties can get around spending limits by diverting expenditure to local campaigns? If such an obvious loophole is allowed then there will in effect be no limits on political spending and we will have a US type system were most political spending is through the backdoor. Party politics aside is this really what any democrat wants?
The depths to which this labour administration can sink seems
unfathomable. Gerrymandering,nepotism,self-interest are typical of this cynical.amoral lot.
You've got a bit muddled up there, especially as no-one other than a PM will know when a General Election will be called, so you can hardly call all expenditure in the preceding 12 mths election expenses. Also, this Govt brought in the rules that declared election expenses only apply from the day after Parliament rises (I think), meaning less has to be declared.
You may have a point about the extra funding for MPs, but I'm with peter kenyon. The cap on spending makes a good deal of sense.
As for the trade union barb, funding rules that effectively hamstring the Labour party are no doubt welcomed by the Tories. Trade union's are a special case because of the numbers of people they represent.
Will the three main parties ever recognise that their profligate campaign spending is becoming distasteful to a growing proportion of the electorate? We aren't the dupes out here that we used to be.
My view is that all parties spend an unethical and undemocratic amount of money to get their noses into the government trough. This sets up spending and conduct patterns which discredit governments.
The whole circus should be illegal as it subverts democracy. Politicians and candidates should have to get off their butts, roll their sleeves up and establish track records of commitment and hard work for their communities.
Bet you delete this :)
Auntie Flo'
1:38 PM
The Con lady around our way seems to be getting of her b-m and trying to help , Iain Dave will not get in he's a tone clone :-)
the word verification is not nice Iain ingshit
These New Labour Stalinists need to be kicked out asap for the sake of what's left of our democracy.
Cameron's Tories aren't exactly my cup of tea but they're the best hope we have of removing the Blairite/Brownite pestilence from our institutions.
However, vote tactically to get rid of New Labour!
Iain, your recent tendancy to treat anything you disagree with as 'corrupt' is getting very tiresome.
A cap on spending (if set at right level) will mean that, at any one time, parties will have more offers of donations than they can accept (why accept money that you aren't allowed to spend?).
This creates a market in which parties can be much more choosy about who they take money from. Donations from those who are seeking large amounts of influence are currently accepted because of the fundraising 'arms-race' between the main parties. i.e. both fearing that, by not accepting donations from EVERYONE, regardless of whether the doner will want something in return, they will place their party at a relative disadvantage.
Surely the reason for party funding reform is to limit the influence of doners? Spending limits will do that. Donation caps will not.
If people are so keen to donate to their party via Unions, then surely they will be keen to make their own small donations individually instead.
Or do Union members not really realise how much of their hard-earned is being syphoned off to support the Bliars?
"Or do Union members not really realise how much of their hard-earned is being syphoned off to support the Bliars?"
People in Trade Unions have to opt-into paying into the Union's political fund. Money that goes to the Labour Party comes out of the political fund.
So to say that their money is being 'syphoned off' is incorrect. If you don't opt in (you have to tick a box when you join the Union), none of your money goes to the Labour party.
Wow, I hope this works! What a cunning plot - shows how NL are still capable of skilled Tory-bashing even in their darkest hour. Good on them.
glasshouse said...
If you don't opt in (you have to tick a box when you join the Union), none of your money goes to the Labour party.
If you'd believe that you'd believe anything! And that's from an ex-Unison branch secretary.
Ridiculous Iain, sorry. There really ought to be some inter-election limits on spending. These would also benefit your poorer candidates who have not got the £42,500 PERSONAL INVESTMENT touted as the average over just two years in Tory land.
Union contributions are about £2:50 per head per annum of those who opt in.
Having some kind of properly enforced limit e.g. £1,250 ceiling per month and £5,000 in any rolling six-month period would allow some investment but stop £20,000 of hoardings appearing in ANOther constituency the day before parliament rises.
£5,000 per six months would be approximately the same as the MP parliamentary report allowance.
Such rules would also stymie Labour now in their target attacks and defends and, assuming the worst case of a Tory administration at some time in the next 10 years, would work for your party then.
PS Gerrymander is completely the wrong word and concept for this situation. Used by conservatives in USA in the first place (Hat tip to Governor Gerry) and perfected by Unionists in 'Derry who managed to get a near 100% Protestant return to a council where 65% of voters were Catholic.
And PPS On the boundary changes in Greater Manchester there was a transparanet attempt by CCHQ, with Jake Berry (then saying he was from Wigan way I think?) chipping in, to balkanise and wipe away all the historic boundaries.
Now that's what I call Gerrymandering.
If you don't opt in (you have to tick a box when you join the Union), none of your money goes to the Labour party.
In which case, I propose to set up a Union or few which represent the interests of the professionals and middle classes. Membership would only cost a few pounds a year and these Unions could donate millions to whichever party represents the interests of their members.
Now that's what I call Gerrymandering.
What I call gerrymandering is that Labour MPs have to secure on average far fewer votes than Conservative MPs to secure a seat.
Urban constituencies outside London tend to have a smaller population than rural and London seats. How convenient for the Labour party!
Claiming that the way the Unions spend money is more democratic than large corporations is rather ridiculous. I have yet to find a single memebr of a trade union who supports the present government, yet nearly all the money goes to Labour.
If trade unions want to buy some policies, that need to consider shopping around...
Anonymous 1:10pm
Anonymous at 1:02pm is not muddled - that is exactly how national campaign expenditure is defined by PPERA - check the Act
"In which case, I propose to set up a Union or few which represent the interests of the professionals and middle classes. Membership would only cost a few pounds a year and these Unions could donate millions to whichever party represents the interests of their members."
Do it then...
"Claiming that the way the Unions spend money is more democratic than large corporations is rather ridiculous."
I'm not claiming that. Unions donations should be subject to the same regulations as any corporate donation.
"I have yet to find a single memebr of a trade union who supports the present government, yet nearly all the money goes to Labour."
You're probably thinking about Unions which aren't affiliated to the Labour Party. Otherwise your point is just completely incorrect - If a Union member doesnt opt into the political levvy, none of their money goes to the Labour Party.
This is a foolhardy approach which will favour single issue groups, but which is vulnerable to abuse as long as the supply of potential funding is higher than the spending limits.
For example, what is to stop the "Little-Piddling-in-the-Marsh Association of people who might be predisposed to vote for people wearing blue rosettes but we're not the Tory Party, honest" from putting out leaflets or canvassing?
Offhand and from my reading, I'd guess that the last time the entire political system was as corrupt as it is now was during Walpole's time.
We need a clear out.
Mmm...you've lost me here, Iain. I thought you posted a week or two ago saying how awful it was for Labour to inaccurately criticise the Tories for collecting / spending 3 times as much as Labour when they were doing nothing of the sort.
Make your mind up - are you happy for the Tories to outspend Labour 3 to 1 or do you want a level playing field.
I'm not sure you can have it both ways...
lin23Iain, exactly how many people pay the voluntary political levy through their trade unions (merely a collection mechanism)? This is not a rhetorical question: you could certainly find out, and you might well know already.
By contrast, exactly how many people have contributed to the recent change in the Tories' financial situation by buying thousand pound dinner tickets and such like? This enormous difference is the point.
In fact, Labour's trade union links and the hereditary peerage, both now under mortal threat, embody this country's double blessing: both very highly organised labour and a very highly developed aristocratic social conscience.
Of course, this combination (unique in the world, at least in terms of degree), means that Britain is bourgeois-triumphalist neoconservatism's worst nightmare. Hence the determination, both to replace the former with state funding of political parties (and thus with state vetting of candidates through some ghastly glorified committee), and to replace the latter with a second chamber of persons "elected" from party lists for prolonged and non-renewable terms of office.
Post a Comment