Labour Party Finances In Dire Straits?

[The Knimbies who say No]

From 'The Times', whatever that is. Can't see the full article. Classic Labour, do they ever learn. They are preparing the ground to 'consolidate all your debts into one easy payment'. There have been rumblings for a while about the state of the Party's coffers, I guess this is more fuel on the fire. I don't think Ed will be able to bank much from the unions..

The disgruntled local officials ought to reflect on being shafted by top-down centralised diktat. Might knock a bit of sense into some of them to see how it is to be on the receiving end of their 'Government knows best' garbage for a change. If Labour treats its own like this, seems a fair assumption that everyone else has no chance. I hope this makes big news tomorrow.

If anyone has the rest of it, it would make a good read.

Of course, if any of these local associations grow a pair and refuse to do it, it might get interesting. Doubt that'll happen though.

Revolt over Labour’s raid on its local party assets

Labour is forcing local parties to hand over their headquarters buildings, enabling it to shore up its precarious finances, The Times has learnt. The move allows the party, which has a deficit of millions of pounds, to raise loans against the properties. It has caused unrest in constituency offices, which have been told that they will be thrown out of Labour unless they agree to sign over their assets. Several have told The Times of their anger at having to give up ownership of the buildings. They have been told to transfer the deeds of the properties into a company controlled by the national party. Letters sent out to constituencies that oppose the ruling state that complying is a “pre-condition of continued affiliation to the party”. Peter Watt, who served as Labour’s general secretary when the party narrowly avoided bankruptcy, said that it was right that local members helped to sort out its finances. “I think [the party] is doing a terrific job at stabilising the…

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Edited January 18, 2012 by cheeznbreed

[billybong]

It sounds like a re-run of the Labour Party's much advertised adverse financial circumstances before Blair/Brown gained control and supposedly "reinvented" Labour. Reinvented - farce.

After that everything was suddenly supposed to be financially hunky dory for Labour.

These days I dont believe much if any of such stuff as published. If the politicians will totally lie about cast iron manifesto promises then they will certainly be economical with the truth about their own party's financial circumstances.

If only voters had known then what they know now, "No more boom and bust, prudence, no more housing booms, BoE controlling responsible interest rate policies, no more sleaze etc etc".

That's not to say that the Tory/LibDems (Coalition) are different.

Giving them money is like handing the banks money on a plate.

Edited January 18, 2012 by billybong

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Money for Nothing

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

There was a story in my local paper a few weeks ago (can't find it online; sorry) to the effect that all the Labour councillors in York were under orders from Central Office to claim every last penny they were eligible to in expenses, mileage, allowances and so on, and then forward all but a tiny fraction of it to the central party's coffers, such was the dire state of their finances. Of course that is why they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid a cap on union donations.

[LetsGetReadyToTumble]

From what I can read on a graphic of the front page, Labour have a deficit of 7.5 million pounds.

[Tiger Woods?]

This tells you everything you ever need to know about the statist left. Maybe a few members will wake up, but I doubt it.

[admann]

Nice to see they run their own finances in the same way as they ran the country!

[fluffy666]

This tells you everything you ever need to know about the statist left. Maybe a few members will wake up, but I doubt it.

It'd be so much better if they just took donations from fraudsters(LD) or the hedge fund industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/06/liberal-democrat-donor-arrested-caribbean

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49051562-20f0-11e1-8a43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jnLyGBFt

Biggest problem for Labour is their drift rightwards economically. Including their recent statements that they would copy the Conservative spending plans (Yay! Stagnation forever!).

[interestrateripoff]

Excellent, do as we say or your out.

[whoami]

Labour Party Finances In Dire Straights?

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

After an election, the losing party always has financial problems, as doners are unwilling to donate to a party that doesn't have the power to pass laws reflecting their interests.

Put simply, you only pay bribes to people in power.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

We're brothers in arms

[The Knimbies who say No]

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

Changed, 'soz' and 'fanx'

[The Knimbies who say No]

After an election, the losing party always has financial problems, as doners are unwilling to donate to a party that doesn't have the power to pass laws reflecting their interests.

Put simply, you only pay bribes to people in power.

This doesn't quite cut it though, as the problems have been rumbling on for a few years now. I suppose the same applies to a fag-end Government, but the consistent message seems to be that Labour will always spend more than they have, irrespective of the numbers involved.

Edited January 18, 2012 by cheeznbreed

[swissy_fit]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

[The Masked Tulip]

I would not worry if I were you. In X years, when it looks like they will get back in power, no doubt lots of rich businessmen IMPO will be more than happy to curry favour by conveniently donating large sums to the coffers.

[Milton]

In 2005 Labour formed a Government with 35.3% of votes cast on a turnout of 61.3%.

That means only 21.64% of the electorate voted for that Government.

Which means they had no right to form a Government doesnt it?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Milton

[Snafu]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

Yepp, it should (like in many other countries).

[The Knimbies who say No]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

Nonsense.

The way to re-establish democracy is to have parties petitioning the electorate for funds based on their policies. Policies that people don't want = bankruptcy. That would sort out the wheat from the chaff pretty sharpish.

[fluffy666]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

And rules about what you can do *after* being in government (Reference : Tony 'Is that a big brown envelope in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me' Blair).

[fluffy666]

In 2005 Labour formed a Government with 35.3% of votes cast on a turnout of 61.3%.

That means only 21.64% of the electorate voted for that Government.

Which means they had no right to form a Government doesnt it?

That's the magic of FPTP. Ask any of the Tories who campaigned to keep it.

[Si1]

That's the magic of FPTP. Ask any of the Tories who campaigned to keep it.

specifically, that Labour victory was about electoral boundaries more than it was about FPTP

[swissy_fit]

Nonsense.

The way to re-establish democracy is to have parties petitioning the electorate for funds based on their policies. Policies that people don't want = bankruptcy. That would sort out the wheat from the chaff pretty sharpish.

It's based on votes received in most countries.

My guess is that a national referendum before every election for all proposed policies of all main political parties would be a little expensive....

[Executive Sadman]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

All public funding of political parties will do is set a minimum price on entry to politics and increase the cost, just as govt does everywhere else.

They should focus on reducing the cost, getting rid of 'deposits', not increasing it.

[Executive Sadman]

In 2005 Labour formed a Government with 35.3% of votes cast on a turnout of 61.3%.

That means only 21.64% of the electorate voted for that Government.

Which means they had no right to form a Government doesnt it?

It means nearly 40% of the country couldnt care less, either thought that they weren't worth voting out, or the other alternatives weren't worth voting in....