Labour ‘scrap plans to block wealthy donors’ spending in marginal seats’

From today’s Guardian:

Ministers have abandoned plans to block wealthy Tory donors such as Lord Ashcroft from spending huge sums of money in marginal seats between general elections. … The amendment scraps a planned “trigger” which would have meant that would have meant that, the moment a candidate was adopted, their campaign spending would have been subject to restrictions.

The Guardian understands ministers have been warned that the rules would be very difficult to police. In its place, the government has set a date – 55 months after the new parliament first sits – when new restrictions, set at £25,000 per candidate, per constituency, will apply for the remainder of the parliament (up to six months later).

If a general election is held less than 55 months after the last one – as it is often is – the £25,000 limit will kick in only once the election is called. The figure is more than double the present limit of £12,000, which applies from the moment a general election is called, normally around one month before polling day.

If it goes through as the government proposes, the measure will only come in to force if Gordon Brown decides not to call an election until the last moment, June next year, when it would start on New Year’s Day.

Why the change of heart? Has Labour’s Jack Straw really discovered that the law would be unworkable in practice (and since when did that stop this government from legislating)? Or has Labour realised it might hurt some if its seats which benefit from trade union largesse?

One thing’s for sure: democratic politics won’t thrive for as long as money skews the electoral market-place. It’s in interests of the Labour/Tory establishment to further entrench the current skewed system. It’s not in the interests of citizens.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Chris Rennard 7th Feb '09 - 12:23pm

    The trigger method that Labour proposed was unworkable – and we told them so.

    As was the previous scheme (initially backed by the Electoral Commission) to say that spending should be limited in the 4 months prior to polling day – but with nobody knowing (apart perhaps from the Prime-Minister) when polling day in a General Election would be.

    Re-introducing the trigger (that was in effect abolished by accident in 2000) would not have stopped the Ashcroft paid for “national mailshots” being posted to marginal seats during a campaign. Perhaps the money paying for them actually should have been paid in British taxes – but that is another argument.

    The Bill will shortly move to the Lords where we will (again) try to act to uphold the principles of the original (1883) legislation aimed at creating a more level playing field for constituency campaigning. At present there is effectively no limit (subject to available funds) on what a national party can spend promoting a national campaign in a particular constituency during or prior to a General Election. But there is a limit on what candidates (through their agents) can spend promoting themselves personally during the last formal part of the campaign. This is clearly not fair and discriminates against parties with more limited funds or who want to promote candidates more personally and explain the circumstances that apply in that constituency.

    Chris

  • Mark Wright 7th Feb '09 - 5:54pm

    James I think that’s a it of a red herring – the costs involved in such events are negligible. If you look at the total sum of cash spent by political parties in an area, all but a tiny fraction is spent on campaigning for elections.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Martin Gray
    Ultimately - you cannot sustain the current levels of immigration, & solve the housing crisis simultaneously...Sadly too many progressives are infatuated wi...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "Blaming them for promising amenities (to get planning permission) that they then find endless excuses to delay, however…" A key issue and the one which resu...
  • Joe Bourke
    The Renew Europe demand that the EU Council and Commission take responsibility and finally take further steps to apply Article 7, which could lead to the remova...
  • Cassie
    @Simon R – “I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit.” I, for one, wasn't blamin...
  • Joe Bourke
    Vernon Bogdanor has an interesting analysis of the rise of the Reform party in contrast with the SDP of the 1980s https://inews.co.uk/opinion/reform-no-fimmick-...