Peter Kenyon

Beware pickpockets - Lib-Dem demands

Well, well, well, surprise, surprise. What was spotted on Liberal-Democrat Nick Clegg's list of demands? Yes, taxpayers' money to bolster the finances of his party. Check out the third set of demands.

According to Gary Gibbon's Channel 4 blog:

The list includes “Hayden Phillips” reforms – the re-writing of the rules on party funding. This suggested a cap on donations which would make it very difficult for the trade unions to pump money into the Labour Party in the way they have for years.

The list also includes “Short money” which is the money political parties get from the government… a sort of covert state funding for political parties. Nick Clegg obviously thinks it’s important his party gets a bit more in the kitty to match its new responsibilities.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Standards in Public Life confused with party funding

Sir Christopher Kelly, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life risks torching his own reputation by opining about a recent inquiry into the funding of political parties.

According to the BBC report of his press conference earlier today about a survey into public trust in our politicians:

Sir Christopher told a press conference in Westminster this morning that he was concerned by the lack of resolution within Parliament over party funding.

He called for political parties "to have the courage to work together to reach a consensus" and said it was "a matter of great dismay that this has not happened and may not happen until after the next election".

Interviewed later on the BBC TV One o'clock news he explicitly refered to the doomed Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I shall be sending him copies of my main pieces on party funding published in Chartist, here , here and, if you have access to a proper library, Chartist #212 when I reviewed the Electoral Commission report on party political funding (2004). I warned prior to publication of Hayden Phillips updated report in 2007:

The unsuspecting public should beware. This is no innocent inquiry.

I look forward to your graceful retraction, Sir Christopher, pending proper consideration as would become someone in your position with a reputation to consider as much as any politician.

Party funding reform - no, members test of politics - yes

Deripaskagate risks encouraging the roaches for statefunding of political parties from the dark corners of the Palace of Westminster where they have been lurking since the effective collapse of the Hayden Phillips Inquiry two years ago. The pros and cons are set out here.

Democracy would be strengthened if politicians were encouraged to rely on membership subscriptions and small donations to fund their party organisations.

The success of Barack Obama in adopting a 50-state, grassroots organisational approach in his US presidential election campaign has had eye-watering success raising funds. Latest statistics show $259 million or 43% of Obama's campaign funding is accounted for donations of up to $200.

That's a salutory reminder that if a politician cannot persuade people to support her/his political values and ambition by putting their money where their mouth is, then the aspiring politician doesn't deserve to be in politics in the first place.

I'm encouraged to see that at the forthcoming London Labour Party bienniel conference 'Membership - the backbone of the Labour Party' is being offered as a workshop. Let's hope it doesn't get cancelled due to a lack of interest.

Party funding - Straw's collective blind-spot

Jack Straw is not going to improve Labour's electoral prospects by attempting to break the link between the Labour Party and the trade unions. Today, the Guardian reports his latest ideas for publication in a White Paper on party funding as a follow through to the Hayden Phillips' Inquiry. It is badly thought through, like the abolition of the 10p tax band and the extention of detention without charge to 42-days. This particular article headlines union opposition. The affiliated trades unions are not alone in opposing the state interfering in the constitutional affairs of political parties. There are large numbers of individual party members who are opposed to that, along with the parallel idea of increased state-funding of political parties to keep career politicians in office.

Just because there are elections going on does not mean collective organisation is alseep, dormant or dead. Labour has to revive itself as a collective voluntary organisation from its grassroots up both in terms of membership and money. Even if good governance were restored who would want to let Labour Party HO have exclusive control of the Party's finances? Collectivism has to be restored to its rightful place in our political culture. Career politicians need be held to account. If Labour in government doesn't get its collective head round this pdq, it will be dealt with severely by the electorate, and deservedly so.

Party funding to top Labour policy agenda today?

The Labour Party's Policy Commission on Crime, Justice, Citizenship and Equalities is now in session. A call for Party Funding to be put top of the agenda is expected from members representing...No, not trade union interests ..but constituency and regional Labour Party interests. The meeting was due to start at 1500.

The Labour Party has a policy about Hayden Phillips. It was agreed at the 2006 Annual Conference. And after it was discovered that Tony Blair had a cosy chat with Hayden Phillips on 30 November 2006, the PLP and then the National Executive Committee reaffirmed the Party's policy - leaving Hayden Phillips' Inquiry holed below the waterline.

As long as Gordon Brown is using the Inquiry as a means of boxing in the Tories over uncontrolled electoral spending, that's fine by me. But if he seriously thinks he can use the taxpayer to bail out the Labour from the £20 million debt mountain left by T. Blair, forget it. The public will never fall for that. Will they?

Labour's stand on party funding remains unprincipled

Yesterday's Opposition motion on Party funding was amended by the government in the following way:

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

“notes that political funding reform is essential to the future health of democracy in the UK and that Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech said that the Government would bring forward proposals on the regulation of party finance and expenditure; regrets that a comprehensive reform package was not achieved by the inter-party talks owing to the unilateral decision of the Conservative Party to walk away from a draft agreement put to the parties by Sir Hayden Phillips, despite the fact that the draft agreement faithfully reflected recommendations in Sir Hayden’s 15th March 2007 Report, which they”—

the Conservatives—

“had earlier welcomed; and urges all parties to engage constructively in order to achieve lasting reform in the public interest.”.

Hansard Debates 4 December 2007

When will our lords and masters get their heads round the facts concerning the appointment of Hayden Phillips? I know it seems a long time ago, but remember who appointed him. Yes, Tony Blair, the man who resigned leaving the political party that made him saddled with debts totalling £20 million. 

Until Labour adopts a principled stand on this issue, forgets Hayden Phillips, concentrates on capping election spending and ensuring current regulation is administered rigorously, public trust will remain beyond reach. Oh, and don't forget to revisit the Electoral Commission report on the funding of political parties December 2004. Remember - membership and small donations.

Cameron's venal side exposed over Labour funding

You couldn't make it up. Here we are more than a week into the Donorgate affair and David Cameron is signalling there is scope for a deal to fleece the taxpayer to fund the Conservative Party.  At a press conference earlier today, he is reported here:

Mr Cameron said later that it would be "unrealistic" to have a system of donation caps and no extra taxpayer funding at all for parties.

"If parties just sit there getting fat cheques from the taxpayer for doing not very much, that's not a good system," he said.

But he added: "I think it would be unrealistic to say you can have a £50,000 cap that applied right across the board, to say at the same time 'no additional state funding'.

"We do need parties that are appropriately funded."

Quite so. No principles to worry about there, then in the new Conservative Party. Meanwhile, a close read of Gordon's speech to the Labour Party National Policy Forum suggests that our man is not convinced increased state-funding is right. This is evident from these words:

The Short funding has increased more than fourfold since 1997. This year, the total amount of short money was £6.6m, with over £4.5m being paid to the Conservative Party.

While I myself need to be convinced that there would be public acceptance of extensions, I recognise that this will be a source of continuing consultation.

The full text of Brown's speech can be read here. I have already taken Brown to task here about his bald assertions about state funding. Some may see this reflection as evidence of indecision on his part. I prefer to live in hope.

Does Labour's Leader think we are all daft?

I've been in Manchester all day for the Annual General Meeting of Save the Labour Party. Gordon Brown's speech to the National Policy Forum was dominated by the subject of political funding. It appears as though he has been discouraged from bouncing proposals through the Labour Party's National Executive Committee for the moment. But he must have left his audience at the National Policy Forum in no doubt about his intentions.

Here is the key section of his speech with my observations in plain bold:

Way forward

Because I believe it is now time to move forward, I believe our party should now discuss and agree reform and how best to make change work.

In the first instance NEC and PLP officers should warn the Leader that he does not serve either the government or the party's interests by making misleading statements, for example:

Since the 1970s the provision of ‘Short Money’ and ‘Cranborne Money’ has provided public funds to the main opposition parties. So the principle of public funding of our democracy is already being implemented.

Short and Cranborne monies are provided for a specific purpose to fund parliamentary opposition to offset the access to publicly funded resources of the government, namely the civil service and special advisors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money

These funds are specifically tied to parliamentary activity. They do not create a precedent for increased state funding as set out by Hayden Phillips.

And all political parties have had the opportunity of free television and radio time, along with free postage.

Except for local government elections where there is a case for extending facilities.

The Short funding has increased more than fourfold since 1997. This year, the total amount of short money was £6.6m, with over £4.5m being paid to the Conservative Party.

Government expenditure on Special Advisors, for example, has mushroomed so this is not surprising and does not detract from the original and continuing purpose of Short Money

While I myself need to be convinced that there would be public acceptance of extensions, I recognise that this will be a source of continuing consultation.

With whom? Will this include the Labour Party itself which has already taken a view about Hayden Phillips?

Will Brown be allowed to get away with this?

Is Brown planning to sacrifice Labour's TU link?

An emergency Labour Party National Executive Committee is planned tomorrow on the margins of the National Policy Committee at a Heathrow hotel. Gordon Brown is considering intends bouncing a proposal to accept Hayden Phillips recommendations on the funding of political parties in the wake of the Donorgate scandal. In the light of his recent success at the 2007 Annual Conference in gagging conference delegates, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to muster support, now the prospect of a General Election has receded. Ironic really, given that no one could reasonably accuse the TU barons of exercising undue influence over the Labour Party for years. Remind me, what is all the current consternation about? Oh, yes - the illegal handling of donations from high value donors by the Labour Party. And what was the issue when the Hayden Phillips Inquiry was first set up? Oh, that was allegations of cash for honours. And who was in the frame? Oh yes. high value donors lenders to the Labour Party. Hang on a minute, what's this got to do with the Trade Unions? Oh, I remember the new Labour Project was to end the federal structure of the Labour Party.  Nice one, Gordon. You will finally be able to say you have succeeded where Tony Blair demonstrably failed.

Let's hope someone remembers there is a Conference policy about Hayden Phillips. Oh, forget it since when has a Labour Leader ever taken notice of a Conference resolution. What I find utterly unbelieveable is that he thinks he can do a deal with the Tories. Why on the basis of his government's current performance would the Tories have the slightest interest in doing a deal based on Hayden Phillips when it involves fleecing the taxpayer. After all the Tories could deal with Trade Union political donations on their own terms after the next General Election. We all know its been a difficult week. Gordon, you have scored one massive own goal by letting snap general election speculation career out of control. Do you really need a second? Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

UPDATE 2250 BBC2 's Newsnight programme carried report on emergency TULO meeting to address Brown plan and confirms issue to be discussed at emergency NEC tomorrow, originally called to decide arrangements for recruiting a new General Secretary.

Brown must shun party politics at taxpayers' expense

The Labour Party needs to rebuild from its grassroots. No apologies for being a harpy. Yet Gordon Brown at PMQs today was still trotting out the tired script inherited from his predecessor about the Hayden Phillips inquiry (sic) into party political funding. Admittedly this a fast moving story. His performance at PMQs was otherwise faultless. We have got to avoid being distracted by our political opponents whinging on about the internal Labour Party inquiry by Lord Whitty, the results of which are to be reviewed and worked on by m'Lords Harries and McClusky. This does not in any way detract from inquiries by the Electoral Commission and possibly the Metropolitan Police.

But the issue of Labour Party solvency remains. Taxpayers' money is not the answer. There is a shockingly corrosive view at large among "opinion formers". This asserts that the age of mass membership political parties is dead.  My colleagues and I in Save the Labour Party and on the LabOUR Commission disagree profoundly.

A start was made in the late 1980s through to 1997, then stopped. The Electoral Commisson made a valiant, but timid attempt to remind our politicians of the role of members and small donations in its report on the funding of political parties in December 2004. Since then silence from ALL three main political parties. No debate in Parliament. No further consideration by a select committee in either of the Houses of Parliament. No public service broadcasting coverage. No broadsheet analysis. Total silence.

Meanwhile, Labour Party membership continues to fall. A question from Mary Turner, President  of the GMB union, at last week's Labour Party National Executive Committee about membership revealed that the 2007 year end figure to be published in July 2008 would show a further, albeit and thankfully, smaller fall than in the previous 11 years. In an earlier presentation Party officials said recruitment and retention were at the highest levels for a decade. That's welcome. Bit it does not detract from the fact that Labour failed to attract enough members to halt the 11-year decline in membership.

Without a vision of rebuilding Labour Party membership, translating Labour values into Labour policies in government, Gordon Brown's premiership is doomed. Impossible to rebuild membership? Has Labour nothing to learn from mass membership single issue organisations?