I thought the Tory party was flush with cash these days.

You’re right – we have a choice between out and out crooks and a bunch of incompetents. How much evidence does it take to make you ‘progressives’ lose faith in the political process!?

Troll “we have a choice between out and out crooks and a bunch of incompetents. How much evidence does it take to make you ‘progressives’ lose faith in the political process!?”

I lost faith in the trolls on here ever saying anything interesting a long time ago.

Give it a rest Sally, Nick is a long way from a troll…which you’d know if you spent more of your time actually reading what goes on here.

On the original topic, quite right really…did they project on income based on good polling, in which case they are not only hypocrites when it comes to competency of finance, but they are also extremely arrogant to believe that they could continue to coast through any weather with the sort of poll results they were getting.

But as Nick says…it’s not like we’re sitting with a government that can do any better….a rock and a hard place would not be too far off being an accurate description when it comes to our fiscal future, no?

He may be a troll but in terms of tax and how it’s spent he’s not far wrong…

So what are you going to do to make it better Lee?

How much evidence does it take to make you ‘progressives’ lose faith in the political process!?

Ahhh! The beauty of nihilism! Who’s better, the cynic or those who those who engage and try and create change *slowly* from within?

The differences are slight, but only the nihilist takes no risks…

Who’s better, the cynic or those who those who engage and try and create change *slowly* from within?

Hehe I wouldn’t start pulling on that thread lest our whole worlds unravels!

“Ahhh! The beauty of nihilism! Who’s better, the cynic or those who those who engage and try and create change *slowly* from within?”

I am not a nihilist. I just think the solutions to nearly all (if not all) our problems lie outside of politics. I only wished it stopped getting in the way!

Ignore me. I was pissed and getting romantic.

It won’t happen again.

Politics is rubbish and you’re all dorks!*

*that feels better, sigh

Quite funny.
The Tory HQ would rather cut back than borrow.
While Labour HQ is in debt up to its neck, isn’t it?

Now which model is best for the economy….if only (thanks to GB in case you forget) we weren’t starting from here!

Yup, incompetence by Tory central office, but then again labour’s central party finances are utterly bollocksed, and rely on the largesse of donors with vested interests, those of the Lib Dems showed reliance on a crook’s money, much of the SNP’s loot comes from a homophobic bigot (avoid Stagecoach if poss…).
You can give the Tories a booting on this,and it’s deserved but you’re on very shaky ground if when doing so you are tribally cheerleading for Labour or the LibDems, SNP etc, as they are equally deserving (if not more so) of a kicking on this matter of financial competence.
[n.b. the Tories are odious, by and large, but this isn't to my way of thinking the best front on which to attack them]

With the Lib Dems facing bankruptcy due to accepting dodgy millions from a fake donor and Labour being bailed out by the unions after all their big donors jumped ship, you can hardly take shots at the Conservatives for not making best use of their resources.

Pick a better informed fight next time.

“So what are you going to do to make it better Lee? ;)”

Well I for one am blowing huge amounts of money on consumer goods, the British way!

@ Sunny and Lee, a (slightly) more serious way to make party finances better would be to dismantle (as far as possible) the centralised machinery which costs a shedload, and encourage local donations to constituency parties (without it being siphoned off by the party apparatchiks). It would even allow for greater diversity of opinion within a party (less ability of the centre to control), plus restore the immediate/direct link between localities and politicians: you could give nad see where the money went, as it wouldn’t be going outside of your locality. also fit with your engagement schtick, Sunny.
Alternatively, shove all of the budget on Clerk’s Choice in the 12:00 at Southwell (it will place at worst).

Heh I don’t care for parties so I don’t really care how they solve their finances. I would suggest that they move more in to trying to get donations for pushing specific campaigns, something like you say above Alisdair, to get a better value for their members…it’d also mean that only things supported by their membership would get the kind of push to get carried.

Or, you could always develop a vision of the good society, work out a set of policies that bring you closer to it and then see whether people might start to contribute a little more of their money and time to a cause worth fighting for.

The Labour party have spent the last 15 years trying to be as unideological as possible, to promote the idea that they are simply managing the nation in as pragmatic and efficient a way as possible.

The Tory party has spent the last ten years promoting the even less inspiring notion that Labour is not very good at managing and that they would do better.

I am not putting my hand in my pocket to back one style of competent management over another – there are big decisions to be made about the future of society and the first party that can bring the electorate an attractive vision of where we want to go next will also be the first to fill its war chest.

The single most worrying aspect of Party funding now is the fact that New Labour are in the pocket of the Public sector Unions again. At a time like this when private sector workers are living in constant fear there is little doubt that money is directly buying policy and allowed to so because of a historic connection between New Labour and the Labour movement of the late 19th and 20th century. This “movement “ has long since died and now consists of an unholy alliance between bribery and economic interest and an upper middleclass conveyor belt of fellow travellers buying careers with their inferiors money .

If Liberal Conspiracy was more than simply an attempt to give a gloss to tired old collectivism this would be the subject of outrage and fury . I fear we will see little questioning of Labour’s back door deals at the expense of ordinary people and especially their children .

To those who say that Labour relies on the unions for funding – yes, and proud of it. I don’t understand what is wrong in relying on small contributions from millions of ordinary workers who get a chance to decide whether to contribute both democratically and individually. Better than relying on donations from crooks. And I wish that finance did buy policy, but as any trade unionist will tell you, it doesn’t.

Labour does encourage individuals to make small donations to constituency parties – and very little of the money is “siphoned off” (other than for joint campaigns where more than one constituency may be involved, eg European elections). I would always encourage people to give donations to a local constituency that’s a marginal seat and knows how to spend it, because that way you know 100% of it’s going towards campaigning.

Alisdair Cameron @15: it seems to me that political parties should be free to organise their finances and internal decision-making processes how they wish (within the law); what they shouldn’t be allowed to do is force the rest of us to bail them out when they get it wrong (overspending and causing disengagement), which is what some people in Government have been seriously proposing.

“Wait a second, doesn’t that a ring a bell? Recall anyone making accusations of profligacy and not saving up for a rainy day? If these people can’t even run their own HQ with the values they espouse, how do they plan to run the country?”

Well said Sunny – now check out the labour partys finances, they still haven’t paid off the debt from their 2005 election campaign, their income is dwindling and they are having to increase long term borrowing to stay afloat.
Hang on ! that sounds suspiciously like their plan to “rescue” the economy from recession………………

“The Labour party have spent the last 15 years trying to be as unideological as possible, to promote the idea that they are simply managing the nation in as pragmatic and efficient a way as possible.”

Are you having a laugh ? This is the most ideologically driven government since WW2.

who get a chance to decide whether to contribute both democratically and individually

If they wish to contribute to the Labour Party they would free to do so under any proposed legislation . If , as you claim , these contributions are genuinely individual you would have no objection to a £50,000 cap on all contributions because the individuals would happily send in their cheques .Don’t hold your breath….
In fact Union membership is tied to employment and benefits such as legal protection only come with Union membership This exists largely in tax payer financed areas where competition has not driven out restrictive practice and obviously there is pressure to cough up or Labour would not be so desperate to retain this advantage.
This allows a Unionised minority to put its thumb on the 80% majority’s jugular who are not unionised by openly buying government policy for sectional advantage

That is the truth and it has more in common with a protection racket than a democracy

I said they’re both individual and democratic. People get a chance to vote on whether to continue them, and then they can easily opt out if they want to. I object to changing the way unions donate because union members are currently happy to do it the way they do it and in a free society they should be able to choose how they donate. Providing they’re not forced to donate (and they can benefit from all the other aspects of Union membership without donating), then I don’t see the problem with that.

The fact is that most affiliated TU members want to donate, but they want to donate through their union rather than directly because they want to remind the Labour Party about where it comes from. If they donate through their union they’re showing that a significant aspect of Labour’s support base believes in unionisation and the values that unions hold dear. If they donated directly, it could be because they liked what the government was doing on ID cards, or in Iraq (or, to be fair, Surestart or rejigging national insurance to benefit low earners – the point is no-one would know).

Now that doesn’t give them any direct power or influence – as public sector workers who got a below inflation payrise will tell you – but it allows them to send a message to the Party leadership.

..and while I am on the subject of union funding and the effect this has had on the shape of the coutry how about this for a reality check

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-the-idleness-of-debating-statistics-1059357.html

I suspect part of the problem is that Newmania is an unreconstructed Thatcherite and believes that any non-commercial unit in society bigger than the stereotypical family is “undemocratic”.

(Apologies if that’s left-wing trolling.)

Tim f said – I said they’re both individual and democratic…

Where was my vote ? Pirate ships were usually run along democratic lines, similarly their victims were not part of the franchise and the beneficiaries of this ongoing financial flying picket will of course prefer to retain their privileges .Public sector pay increases ,actually ,have far outstripped private sector equivalents and as for working conditions security and pensions . ..Coincidence? Course it is .
Suspicion , you will recall , has arisen that contributions made by rich individuals like Bernie Ecclestone might be used to exert anti democratic pressure for financial gain. Precisely the same thing applies to the Unions who openly, quite openly, negotiate for their members without any reference to the interests of the people they exploit . They are not ‘one’ but they are a long long way from ‘everyone ‘so exactly the same problem applies . Bottom line , either you can buy the Government or you cannot . With Labour, you can and this is wrong .

I do understand and sympathise with the original aims and methods of the broad Labour movement , my uncles were all keen union men , but that is another age. Droit de seigneur would be slightly less anachronistic at this point

PS -Au contraire I support and approve of all the sub state organisations so disliked by New Labour I just do not want them buying the government .I feel the same way about for profit organisations so you , my friend , are out of excuses .

“Public sector pay increases ,actually ,have far outstripped private sector equivalents and as for working conditions security and pensions . ..Coincidence? Course it is .”

It’s because public sector organisations are, on the whole, better-organised and have a higher rate of unionisation than private-sector organisations. Doesn’t mean they can tell the government what to do.

Who are the unions supposedly exploiting, anyway?

Sigh…ok then the Unions just hand over their cash out of the goodness of their hearts twist no arms , and even if they were tempted they would be wasting their time with the “untouchables “ by which I mean of course New Labour .I am not going to explain who is exploited because I will be unable to do so without becoming sarcastic to the point of appearing to be contemptuous . So on that basis , I have no idea and just made it up .

*Beam*

They hand over the cash, presumably like companies and individuals who hand over cash to the Tories, because they believe the Labour Party will advance their interests in government. That doesn’t mean there is a pro hoc ergo proctor hoc thing going on (though, as I’ve said, I wish union cash did guarantee a more union-friendly government perspective).

They hand over the cash, presumably like companies and individuals who hand over cash to the Tories, because they believe the Labour Party will advance their interests in government.

..yes and as individuals they are welcome to continue . When one source , however, is financing the Labour Party almost 100% the possibility exists for this to be more than an existentially conceived hope does it not and sadly I have grown gnarled and cynical .Your assurances that they will not attempt the near impossible task of bribing New Labour is not enough …goodness me what alack of faith I have in human nature .

I `ve got a good idea ! Why not have a £50,000 cap and just to keep paranoid old sillies like me some peace of mind . Oddly enough this is Conservative Party Policy.

timf – I find its best policy just to ignore newmania…

Alisdair – I’m all for more localisation, even for party financing.

Matt,

That depends what you mean by ideological. Personally, I mean that there has to be a larger purpose and a sense of a decision being made between alternative points of view as to which is the appropriate way to go forward.

What this government does is to pretend that it’s decisions are based upon “the science” or “the evidence” as though this brooks no alternative. “The evidence” will suggest that services may more effectively delivered if everyone could, more quickly and easily be identified – ergo a database state. An ideologial decision is one where you look at the practical advantages of ID cards and reject them because you don’t want to upset the relationship between the state and individuals.

An ideological state says that it is right to combat non-reversible damage to the environment whilst accepting that some forms of degradation and habitat loss are a price worth paying for human progress. An un-ideological government hires one of its independent mates to calculate the financial cost of combating climate change relative to the financial cost of doing nothing.

An ideological government decides what sort of health system it wants and then works out how it should be paid for. An unideological government hands the management of the Health Service over to unelected and unaccountable managers in order to prevent “meddling” by, er, the democratically elected Ministers of the government.

“With the Lib Dems facing bankruptcy due to accepting dodgy millions from a fake donor and Labour being bailed out by the unions after all their big donors jumped ship, you can hardly take shots at the Conservatives for not making best use of their resources.”

Why is it that Tories always see Labour as being bailed out by the unions, but never see it as The Tory party being bailed out by multi millionaires like Ashcroft?

What ever you think of the unions , they do at least , represent millions of British people, (even after Thatcher) working in this country, and paying taxes in this country. The Conservative party on the other hand relies on a small group (Less than a few thousand) of very rich people to fund their party. They would like you to believe that they get their money from the woman of the WI making jam. However, this brings in a fraction of the money they raise. In addition , every penny of union money has to be legally declared and accounted for. Anyone can find out how much each union gave the Labour party, and what policies it wants changing. Not the case with the rich Tories who fund the Tory party.

Of course, it is only coincidence that Cameron has taken a bucket load of cash from hedge fund managers, and other various city types, and one of his few declared policies he has announced is to remove stamp duty on share dealing. (no cash for favours there then, no siree)

The Tory party has been taking money for favours, and honours from rich people for two hundred years. It is only when the Labour party, under Blair copied them, that they kicked up such a fuss.

LFAT

With the Lib Dems facing bankruptcy due to accepting dodgy millions from a fake donor

Really? Care to back that utterly untrue allegation with an actual point? One dodgy donation received in during the 2005 electoral campaign, spent entirely on campaigning material and fully investigated by the electoral commission. Nowhere near bankruptcy, in fact, the only one of the ‘big three’ to be on a financially sound footing—they haven’t got any money and thus don’t spent any, the Westminster head office is run on a shoe string and reliant on volunteers for significant tasks.

Seriously, if political organisation could sue, that’d count as defamation, regardless it makes you look ill-informed, something that, to your credit, isn’t your usual stock in trade.

Alisdair, I’ve covered your ‘reliance on a crook’ thing already, it’s factually false, that one donation was received outside normal fundraising and was spent on campaigning. But to your second point:

a (slightly) more serious way to make party finances better would be to dismantle (as far as possible) the centralised machinery which costs a shedload, and encourage local donations to constituency parties (without it being siphoned off by the party apparatchiks).

As said above, Lib Dem HO has minimal staffing, the amount HO gets to run itself is called the ‘federal levy’, it gets nothing from new members, and less than half of renewing members, plus if you renew by direct debit even it gets even less. Virtually all money given to the Lib Dems stays within the local area.

It would even allow for greater diversity of opinion within a party (less ability of the centre to control)

Yup, it does that, definitely, it’s rare to get all the conference reps from one local party agreeing with each other, let alone the whole of conference, and it’s conference that sets policy, with proposals put to it coming from the elected, volunteer federal policy committee.

plus restore the immediate/direct link between localities and politicians: you could give and see where the money went, as it wouldn’t be going outside of your locality

Yup, that happens too—local party accounts are presented at the AGM and at each executive meeting, all members are invited to the AGM and exec meetings are open to all members. Note it really wouldn’t be possible for all money to stay locally, the law requires certain accounting practices, record keeping and similar, and you need national press teams and similar, but the Lib Dems keep as much as is possible locally (there was a massive argument at Bournemouth over a proposal to change the federal levy for renewals from 42% to 44%, I can’t remember which side won but even a 2% change was very contentious).

Seriously, I was persuaded to join by a bunch of bloggers in early 2006, since then I’ve helped set policy and have had some of my ideas adopted as such, Jennie only joined in March and there’s a policy being put before next spring conference that she was in a consultation session for and one of her ideas is being put forward as a principle thrust of the policy. For skint non-Westminster types like us to see our ideas become serious proposals does tend to keep the enthusiasm levels up.

George V:

you could always develop a vision of the good society,

How about “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity“? Works for me.

work out a set of policies that bring you closer to it and then see whether people might start to contribute a little more of their money and time to a cause worth fighting for.

Yup, doing that to. When I joined I said that I was closest to the Lib Dems on 80% of the issues that matter to me, but that didn’t mean I agreed witht hem 80% of the time. Since I’ve got more involved, the policies have moved forwards, and I’m a lot happier overall with the direction they’re taking. Clegg’s shift to a much more liberal, redistributive position is something I’m very happy with (really must write up the interview I did with him last month in Sheffield soon as well).